■ 


>' 


*J 


3£- 


IT 


t 


£ 


■J**" 


im,  / 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Collection  of  Puritan  Literatu 


re. 


Division 

Section 
Number 


/£^.  fov-  ou 


f? 


v 


i  l '//  '  l  '    1  c  •»  ■<  7-2T' 


/S3f 


Universal  Salvation  Indefensible  upon  Mr.  Balfour's  Ground. 


TO 


«AN  INQUIRY 

INTO      THE    SCRIPTURAL     IMPORT      OF      THE    WORDS     SHEOL,      HADES, 

TARTARUS,    AND    GEHENNA.*      ALL    TRANSLATED     HELL, 

IN  THE    COMMON    ENGLISH    VERSION. 

BT    WALTER    BALFOUR." 


IX  A  SERIES  OF 


LECTURES 


DELIVERED    IN    THE    UNIVERSALIST    CHURCH,    CHARLESTOWN. 


BY  JAMES  SJLBIJVE, 

Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  City  of  Boston. 


BOSTON : 

PRINTED    BY    EZRA    LINCOLN. 
1825. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  TO  WIT : 

District  Clerk's  Office. 
BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  thtt  on  the  fifih  day  of  February,  A.  D.  1325.  in  the  forty  ninth  year 
of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America  James  Sabine, of  the  said  district   hat  deposited  in 
this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  proprietor,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit : 

**  Univej-sal  SalraMon  Indefensible  upon  Mr.  Bal'our's  Groun.l  A  Reply  to  ''An  Inquiry  into  the 
Scriptural  impor'  of  the  Words  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus,  and  Gehenna:  al  uanslated  Hell,  in  the  com- 
mon English  Version.  By  Walter  Balfour."  In  a  Series  of  Lee  u res  delivered  in  the  Uni\ersalist 
Church,  Charlestown.  By  James  Sabine.  Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  City  of  Boston." 

In  conformity  10  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  Sta'es.  inti  ltd.  "An  Act  for  the  Encourage* 
of  Learning,  by  securing  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  such 
Copies,  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned  ;*'  and  also  to  an  act  intiiled,  "  An  Act  supplementary  to 
an  Act,  intitled.  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  seeming:  the  Copies  of  Maps  Charts 
and  Hooks,  to  the  Authors  and  Proprietors  of  such  Copies  during  the  timet  therein  mentioned:  and  ex- 
tending the  Benefit*  thereof  to  the  Arts  of  Designing,  Engraving  and  Etching  Historical,  and  other 
Prints."  JOHN  W,  DAVIS, 

Clerk  of  the  District  of  MassachusetU. 


:K&E:FAG2 


The  question  has  been  often  agitated,  whether  Theological  Con- 
troversy has  tended  in  any  good  measure  to  promote  the    knowledge 
of  Divine  Truth.     This  question,  however,  in   an    abstract   form,  is 
not  easily  answered  :  much  depends  on  circumstances,  and  it  has  al- 
ways been  so ;  judgment  ought  to  be  exercised  in  the  case,  so  as   to 
determine  on  what  controversies  may  be  agitated,  and  when  they  may 
be  entered  on  with  the  best  prospect  of  success.     The  judgment  exer- 
cised by  mere  partisaus  and  sectaries  is  to  be  little  respected  in  this 
case,  with  them  the  prosperity  of  their  denomination  is   every  thing, 
and  though  religion  may  be  at  a  low  ebb,  if  things   are  smooth   and 
quiet  in  their  section  all  is  well.     If  the  benefit  of  a  particular  party 
is  to  be  promoted  by  controversy,  then,  the  controversy  must  be  enter- 
ed on  and  pursued  with  zeal.     But  if  several  parties   be  equally  in- 
terested in  opposing  some  declared  errors, and  it  cannot  be  agreed  upon 
which  is  to  share  most  largely  in  the  victory,  all  will  agree  to  be  si- 
lent, and  let  the  error  run  on,  leaving  it,  they  say,  to  God,  nothing  good 
can  be  hoped  for  in  such  a  controversy.     Thus  it  has  been  for  some 
time  past  in  this  region  of  the  church,  to  which  the  attention  of  the 
Reader  must  be  directed.     The  growth  and  speed  of  Universalism 
is  the  more  particular  subject.    It  appears  from  the  Register  of  1817, 
that  there  were  in  this  State  nine  Universalist  Societies. — From  ilie 
same  Register  in  1825,  it  appears  that  there  are  twenty  eight  of  that 
denomination.     A  very  considerable  proportion  of  this   increase  of 
Universalism  is  of  the  Non-retribution  class.     This  is  the  ground  as- 
sumed by  Mr.  Balfour,  and  his  book  is  written  to    give  efficacy,   and 
currency  to  a  system  which  delivers  all  men  from  all  moral   obliga- 
tion, and  introduces  the  vilest  of  the  human  race,  their  hands  defiled 
with  blood,  to  the  bosom  of  heaven's  bliss,  and  to  the  embrace  of  a 
holy  God.     What  has  been   written    and    published    on    this    theory 
heretofore,  for  ihe  most  part,  has  been  very  far  from  reputable  either 
to  authorship  or  morality.     But  Mr.  B —  stands  forward  as   a  man 
of  letters,  from  his  youth  he  has  classed  with  the  more  serious,  evan- 
gelical, and  God-fearing  pari  of  the  religious  community  :  lie  has  for 
years  been  endeavouring  to  establish    a   society    of  Christians  upon 
principles  more  pure  and  simple,  than  what  has  yet  appeared  in  Chris- 
tendom ;  these  circumstances  give  character  and  interest  to  his  change 
of  theological  system,  aud  his  book,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case, 
must  gain  attention,  and    his   system   admirers.      There   is   another 
thing,  Mr.  B — 's  departure  from  orthodox  ground  has  been   declared 
to  have  been  occasioned,  or  assisted,  by  the  doctrinal   defections    so 
manifest  in  our  orthodox  churches.     Upon  his  first  step  towards  Uni- 
versalism he  asked  and  repeatedly  sought  better  instruction  and  ad- 
vice of  theologians  in  high  repute  in  our  schools,  but  these,  instead  of 
helping  his  return,  drove  him  farther  astray,  and  abandoned  him  to  the 


iv  PREFACE. 

devourer.  With  such  impressions  upon  his  mind,  as  these  circumstan- 
ces must  necessarily  produce,  Mr.  B —  sat  down  to  write  his  book,  and 
justified  him,  as  he  thought,  in  treating  the  whole  orthodox  body  as 
fallen  and  vanquished,  as  a  body  unable  to  say  a  word  in  vindication 
of  the  doctrines  they  had  been  propagating  for  centuries — doctrines 
believed  by  many,  but  that  could  be  proved  by  none.  With  these  things 
before  the  public,  and  the  u  Inquiry"  circulating  wider  and  wider,  a 
challeuge  appears  in  one  of  the  most  respectable  journals  in  our 
city,  calling  upon  the  ministers  of  religion  to  show  cause,  why  they 
have  for  so  many  years  taken  wages  for  preaching  the  doctrine  of  re- 
tribution, or  to  give  op  their  claim  to  talent  and  honesty.  To  this  pub- 
lic, and  1  must  say  candid  challenge  there  appeared  a  xevyuncandid  re- 
ply, a  reply  that  did  little  credit  to  the  man  who  wrote  it,  and  less  to 
the  party  who  dictated  it.  But  it  was  evident  that  orthodoxy  would 
not  appear  in  the  gap,  and  with  this  impression  upon  the  public  mind, 
the  M  Inquiry"  was  put  upon  the  author  of  the  following  discourses, 
which  are  offered  as  a  reply.  And  here  it  must  be  understood  that  these 
Lectures  were  not  obtruded  upon  the  public  ear,  a  reply  was  demand- 
ed, and  many  a  serious  Christian  asked  '  Will  no  one  meet  this  un- 
circumcised  Philistine  who  hath  defied  the  armies  of  the  living  God.' 
Under  these  circumstances  the  service  in  the  following  pages  was  of- 
fered, provided  a  pulpit  were  furnished  in  some  suitable  place.  This 
offer  brought  to  light  the  enemies  of  free  inquiry  of  every  party.  The 
Universalist  Magazine  dealt  in  a  style  little  short  of  scurrility — the 
Telegragh  joined  Usue  with  the  Magazine,  and  passed  sentence  upon 
the  projected  plan  of  debate — the  IVatchman,  for  want  of  a  better  ex- 
ample, copied  the  Telegraphic  sentence,  and  thus  all  parties  showed 
their  disapprobation  of  free  inquiry.  Notwithstanding  all  this  the 
Methodists  showed  their  independence,  and  voted,  in  two  separate 
meetings  of  their  Board,  their  pulpit,  and  the  time  was  announced  for 
the  commencement  of  the  Lecture.  But  alas !  some  time  serving 
spirit  was  suffered  to  steal  into  their  cabinet,  and  so  these  good  people 
were  compelled  after  all  their  voting,  to  revoke  their  own  doings  and 
withdraw  their  desk  from  the  controversy.  At  this  crisis  the  Uni- 
versalist Society  in  Charlestown  offered  their  place,  and  stood  to  their 
engagement,  and  here  the  Lectures  were  finally  delivered  to  a  crowded 
and  attentive  audience,  with  what  effect  remains  yet  to  appear. 

Mr.  B — 's  book  in  point  of  literature  is  considered  as  a  respecta- 
ble performance.  The  following  discourses  are  not  intended  by  their 
author  to  dispute  this  :  the  same  body  of  learning  is  not  needed  in  the 
reply,  neither  does  the  author  offer  himself  as  a  rival  on  this  ground, 
his  attainments  in  this  particular,  especially,  are  small  and  limited  ; 
but  he  hopes  that  they  will  be  found  sufficient  to  meet  the  "  Inquiry" 
on  those  subjects  treated  therein  ;  his  great  object  has  been,  as  much 
as  possible,  to  release  the  subject  from  these  perplexities,  instead  of 
farther  involving  it  in  labyrinths,  not  easily  explored  by  common  rea- 
ders. 

Boston,  February,  1S25. 


Examination  and  trial  of  the  ground  taken  in  the  Inquiry. 


BELOVED,      BELIETE      NOT     EVERY    SPIRIT,      BUT    TRY     THE     SPIRITS 
WHETHER    THEY    BE    OF    GoD. 1  John    iv.   1. 

Christianity,  with  all  its  peculiarities,  with  all  its  high 
and  divine  authorities,  makes  no  demand  upon  man,  but 
what  may  be  denominated  a  reasonable  service.  Jehovah  is 
the  self  existent  fountain  of  intelligence  :  from  this  source 
proceeds,  and  from  this  source  is  enriched  the  whole  moral 
creation  of  God  :  by  whatever  name  these  beings  are  to  be 
known — whether  thrones,  dominions,  principalities  or 
powers — whether  angel  or  man,  they  are  to  be  known  as 
reasonable  and  intelligent  beings.  In  whatever  state  these 
intelligences  dwell,  under  whatever  form  they  may  appear, 
with  whatever  bodies  they  may  come — whether  in  vehicle 
of  flesh  or  of  spirit ;  no  yoke  of  bondage  must  be  imposed 
on  the  mind  ;  whatever  is  mental  must  be  as  free  in  its 
moral  agency,  as  is  the  mind  of  Deity.  Thus  constituted, 
the  human  mind  cannot  be  acted  upon  physically  or  me- 
chanically, whatever  is  presented  as  truth,  must  come  with 
reasonable  evidence  ;  no  mere  authority  can  enforce  the 
thing  ;  if  it  be  wanting  in  evidence,  the  mere  employment  of 
power  to  enforce  it,  rather  tends  to  awaken  suspicion,  and 
lessen  its  credit.  Hence  a  miracle,  real  or  pretended, 
wrought  in  confirmation  of  what  is  either  palpably  false,  or 
wanting  in  credit,  so  far  from  giving  it  the  aspect  of  truth, 
gives  it  the  colour  of  a  lie.  Had  the  mind  of  man  never 
been  depraved  and  polluted  by  sin,  there  had  never  been 
the  need  of  miracle  ;  and  just  as  the  mind  is  enabled  to  di- 
vest itself  of  all  sinful  impurity,  and  to  exercise  its  own  in- 
telligence, it  is  capable  of  comprehending  and  acknowledg- 
2 


6  LECTURE  I. 

ing  the  truth,  without  the  intervention  of  a  supernatural 
agency. 

Much  as  we  are  disposed  to  admit  the  idea  of  human  de- 
pravity, we  are,   nevertheless,  careful  not  to  abandon  our 
minds  to  every  wind  of  doctrine.     Whatever  may  be  the 
plea  of  old  and  sage  antiquity — whatever  the  assumptions  of 
learning,  the  impositions  of  deep  research,  or  the  boastings 
of  heavenly  communications,  we  withhold  our  assent  and 
consent,  till  reasonable  evidence  be  brought  down  to  our 
humblest  comprehension.    Upon  this  principle  the  mind 
and  will  of  God  are  made  known  to  men  :  and  the  Deitv  is 
careful  that  the  human  mind  should  be  exposed  to  no  im- 
position, or  being  exposed,  should  be  upon  the  alert  to  de- 
tect and  apprehend  every  imposture.     Hence  God  warned 
the  Israelites  against  the  approaches  of  deception  in  signs 
and  wonders  and  dreams,  testifying  to  what  neither  they 
nor  their  fathers  knew,  that  is,  of  which  they  had  no  evi- 
dence ;  and  commanded  them  to  hold  fast,  and  to  continue 
only  in  that  of  which  they  had  the  most  positive  demonstra- 
tion.    Such  too  is  the  doctrine  inculcated  in  both  books  of 
the  law,  the  old  covenant,  and  the  new.     This  is  the  evi- 
dence our  Divine  Saviour  produces,  and  to  which  he  ap- 
peals :    '  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father  believe  me 
not :' — €  If  any  man  will  do  his  will  he  shall  know  of  the 
doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself,' 
or,  whether  I  am  an  impostor.     Such  also  is  the  criterion  to 
which  the  ministry  of  the  apostles  is  brought.     *  The  Jews 
require  a  sign  and  the  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom,  but  we 
preach  Christ  crucified — Christ  the  power  of  God  and  the 
wisdom  of  God.'  Upon  this  same  principle  goes  the  advice 
given  by  John,  the  Beloved  Disciple,  the  Evangelist  and  the 

Divine 

'  Beloved,  believe  not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits 
whether  they  be  of  God — Because  many  false  teachers  are 
gone  out  into  the  world.'  Men  and  brethren,  this  is  the 
principle  upon  which  we  are  assembled  this  evening.  Reve- 


LECTUUZ  I.  T 

lation  is  our  accredited  standard,  and  to  this  alone  shall  we 
appeal  in  the  exercise  of  our  reason  and  judgment.  In  this 
appeal  we  shall  endeavour  to  divest  ourselves  of  all  party 
prejudice ;  to  us  it  is  to  be  a  matter  of  small  account  what 
is  orthodox,  or  what  is  heresy,  the  question  with  us  is,  on* 

lv,  WHAT   IS   TRUE  ? 

It  will  now  be  our  business  to  take  a  distinct  view  of  die 
ground  for  which  we  are  to  contend  ;  it  will  be  highly 
proper  that  we  ascertain,  with  exact  precision,  the  ground 
assumed  by  our  author  in  his  "  Inquiry."  In  order  to  make 
our  way  to  this  plain  and  clear,  it  will  be  necessary  to  mark 
the  ground  usually  taken  by  Universalists  in  general ;  this 
will  be  important  as  it  will  enable  us  to  see  whether  Mr. 
Balfour's  ground  is  the  same  as  that  already  occupied  by 
Universalists,  or  whether  his  is  new  and  untried. 

The  ground  usually  and  hitherto  taken  by  Universalists 
admits  of  three  views.  1.  The  immediate  salvation  of  all. 
2.  The  annihilation  of  the  wicked  after  a  limited  punish- 
ment, though  this  class  are  Destructionists  rather  than  Uni- 
versalists :  and  3.  The  final  restoration  of  all  who  shall  be 
disciplined  by  the  punishment  divine  goodness  shall  inflict. 
Our  author  shall  state  his  own  ground  for  himself;  his 
words  are,  "  The  simple  object  in  this  inquiry,  is,  to  ex- 
"  amine  the  foundation  on  which  the  doctrine  of  endless 
41  misery  is  built."  Our  author  proceeds  to  explain,  **  This 
"  doctrine  rests  on  the  fact  or  the  falsehood  that  a  place 
"  called  Hell,  in  a  future  state,  is  prepared  for  the  punishment 
"  of  the  wicked."  From  the  statement  of  the  question  thus 
far,  it  would  seem  that  our  author  was  going  only  to  show 
that  there  is  no  place  of  "endless  misery"  for  he  says  that 
"  this  Inquiry  is,  to  examine  the  foundation  on  which  the 
"  doctrine  of  endless  misery  is  built."  But  upon  pursu- 
ing his  ground  a  little  farther,  it  is  evident,  he  intends  not 
simply  to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  but  the 
doctrine  of  future  punishment  altogether,  whatever  may  be 
the  degree  or  duration  of  that  misery  or  punishment :    for 


8  LBGTURB  1. 

xhe  says  that  "in  speaking,  and  preaching,  and  writing  on 
"  the  subject,  this,"  namely,  future  punishment,  "  is  always 
"  presumed  as  true.  It  is  taken  for  granted  as  indisputable. 
"  Most  Universalists  have  conceded  this  to  their  opponents," 
that  there  is  a  place  of  future  punishment,  u  and  have  con- 
"  tended  not  against  the  existence  of  such  a  place  of  misery, 
41  but  against  the  endless  duration  of  its  punishment.     All 
"  the  principal  writers  on  both  sides  of  the  question  proceed 
"  on  this  ground,  that  there  is  a  place  of  future  punishment, 
"  and  that  the  name  of  it  is  Hell.      Winchester,  Murray, 
c<  Chauncey,  Huntington  and  others,  all  admit  that  Hell  is  a 
"  place  of  future  punishment.    Edwards,  Strong,  and  others 
"  who  opposed  them,  had  no  occasion  to  prove  this  but  on- 
"  ly  to  show  that  it  was  to  be  endless  in  its  duration."  We 
now  see,  very  distinctly,  that  our  author's  object  is  to  con- 
tend against  future  punishment  in  every  view  of  it ;  this  con- 
clusion is  demonstrated  by  what  is  added  :    "  This  Inquiry 
"  is  principally  for  the  purpose  of  investigating,  if  what  has 
"  been  taken  for  granted  by  the  one  party,  and  conceded  by 
"  the  other  is  a  doctrine  taught  in  scripture."     That  is, 
that  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  is  not  taught  in  scrip- 
ture.     We  now  perceive  that  there  is  some  little  inaccuracy 
in  Mr.  B — 's  outset ;  he  says  in  the  very  first  sentence  that 
the  simple  object  of  his  Inquiry  is  to  be  on  the  doctrine  of 
endless  misery  :  but  we  see  now  that  that  is  not  his  simple 
object,  for  his  Inquiry  is  " principally"  to  investigate  the 
doctrine  of  future  misery,  without  any  special  regard  to  its 
limitation  or  duration.     He  is  as  much  opposed  to  Win- 
chester, Murray,  Chauncey  and  Huntington,  advocates  for 
a  limited  future  punishment,  as  to  Edwards  and  Strong,  ad- 
vocates for  eternal  punishment. 

I  hope  that  I  have  not  mistaken  Mr.  B — 's  question,  I 
have  looked  at  it  on  all  sides,  and  under  every  form  of  ex- 
pression, and  I  have  appealed  to  his  readers  too,  and  the 
impression  he  has  made  on  every  mind,  I  have  consulted, 
is  in  accordance  with  that  made  on  my  own,  namely,  that 


LECTURE  I.  9 

Mr.  B — 's  scheme  denies  the  doctrine  of  any  future  pun- 
ishment. However,  there  is  one  more  view  to  be  taken  of 
the  stated  question,  which  perhaps  will  afford  a  still  more 
distinct  justification  of  our  conclusion.  Towards  the  end 
of  our  author's  work,  he  introduces  an  objection  to  his 
system,  made  by  some  one  who  would  substitute  a  state 
of  punishment  for  a  place  of  punishment.  To  this  change 
of  idea  Mr.  B —  seems  to  have  considerable  objection,  but 
yet,  admitting  the  new  term,  he  gives  us  to  understand  that 
his  theory  of  No  future  punishment  is  not  touched  thereby, 
leaving  us  to  conclude  that  his  theory  admits  of  no  future 
state,  condition  or  place  of  misery  as  existing  in  all  God's 
universe. 

Our  conclusion  may  now  be  summed  up.  Mr.  B-%-  pro- 
poses to  prove  that  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus,  and  Gehenna, 
all  translated  Hell  in  our  common  Bible,  do  not  represent  to 
us  any  place,  state  or  condition  of  future  misery  or  punish- 
ment. This  is  the  first  member  of  the  conclusion ;  the  se- 
cond is,  that  as  Hell  is  no  place  or  state  of  misery,  the  scrip- 
tures nowhere  teach  that  there  is  any  state  or  place  of  pun- 
ishment in  the  world  to  come.  Assuming  then  this  posi- 
tion to  be  Mr.  B — 's  ground,  we  perceive  that  his  system 
differs  widely  from  those  we  have  been  usually  called  to 
contemplate.  His  system  differs  from  that  which  includes 
the  immediate  salvation  of  all.  Mr.  B—  says  nothing 
about  salvation  or  future  happiness  ;  if  he  contends  for  sal- 
vation it  is  negative  salvation,  in  not  being  punished  ;  but 
as  to  what  is  generally  understood  by  aalvation,  he  says 
nothing  direct  about  it.  His  system  differs  from  the  second 
view  of  Universalism,  which  supposes  the  annihilation  of 
the  wicked  after  a  season  of  punishment.  Mr.  B —  says 
nothing  of  annihilation  or  of  punishment.  His  system  dif- 
fers from  the  third  view,  namely,  restoration  after  discipli- 
nary and  salutary  punishment.  Mr.  B —  knows  nothing  of 
punishment  in  any  degree  or  for  any  period  whatever.  Thus 


10  LECTURE  I. 

have  we  arrived  on  the  ground  marked  out  by  our  author 
himself — The  principle  is  this,  that, 

Punishment  in  a  future  state  is  not  taught  in  the  holy 
scriptures.  This  is  the  ground  we  are  to  trace  in  this  dis- 
course, and  it  will  be  our  duty  to  do  it  with  all  candor  and 
faithfulness,  as  it  becomes  the  cause  we  profess  to  serve. 
It  will  not  be  our  province,  at  this  time,  to  dispute  the 
ground  with  Mr.  B —  but  to  grant  much  of  that  for  which 
he  contends.  It  shall  be  admitted  that  Sheol  in  the  Old 
Testament  has  no  reference  to  a  place  or  state  of  misery ; 
and  that  Hades,  Tartarus  and  Gehenna  in  the  New,  are 
equally  inapplicable  to  a  future  state  of  misery.  This  we 
grant  now,  to  stay  the  argument  for  the  present,  while  we 
view  this  taken  ground,  not  to  prevent  our  disputing,  at 
least  for  some  portion  of  it,  hereafter.  I  shall  now  proceed 
to  produce  some  passages  from  the  "  Inquiry,"  in  which 
Mr.  B —  asserts  that  the  scriptures  do  not  teach  the  doc- 
trine of  future  punishment. 

At  the  head  of  the  second  section,  Chap.  ii.  we  have  it 
thus :  (116)  "  A  number  of  facts  stated,  showing  that  Ge- 

11  henna  was  not  used  by  the  New  Testament  writers  to 
"  express  a  place  of  endless  misery."  This  position  is 
strengthened  thus.  "  Then,  let  it  be  kept  in  remembrance, 
*'  that  neither  Gehenna,  nor  any  other  word,  is  used  in  the 
"  Old  Testament  to  express  a  place  of  endless  misery  for  the 
"  wicked — (120)  No  person  in  the  New  Testament,  our 
"  Lord  excepted,  ever  threatened  man  with  the  punishment 
11  of  Gehenna,  cr^Hell,  he  is  the  only  person  who  ever  spoke 
"  about  such  a  punishment.— (121)  Another  fact  is  that  all 
'*  that  is  said  about  Gehenna  in  the  way  of  threatening,  or 
M  in  any  other  shape  was  spoken  to  the  Jews.  Jews,  and 
M  they  only  were  the  persons  addressed  when  speaking  of 
M  Gehenna.  It  is  not  once  named  to  the  Gentiles  in  all  the 
41  New  Testament,  nor  are  any  of  them  ever  threatened  with 
M  such  a  punishment."  The  nature  and  character  of  that 
punishment  threatened   to  the  Jews,  our  author  clearly* 


LECTURE  I  11 

points  out,  at  least  his  own  views  of  it.  The  punishment 
our  Lord  threatened  was  the  damnation  of  hell,  interpreted 
by  the  Inquirer  to  mean  the  sufferings  coming  upon  the  re- 
bellious and  ungodly  Jews  in  the  destruction  of  their  city, 
as  foretold  by  Jeremiah  under  the  symbol  of  a  burning  To- 
phet  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  as  actually  fulfilled  in 
their  history  recorded  by  Josephus.  Mr.  B — 's  words  are, 
(140)  "  It  is  evident  that  a  punishment  under  the  emblem  of 
"  Gehenna,  was  threatened  the  Jews  by  their  own  prophets, 
"and  this  punishment  was  of  a  temporal  nature.     No  pun- 

"  ishment  of  a  different  kind  was  threatened  them Our 

*  Lord  by  these  words  (the  damnation  of  hell)  only  remind- 
"  ed  the  Jews  of  a  particular  prediction  of  one  of  their  own 
"prophets — (139)  Jeremiah  and  our  Lord  evidently  spoke 
u  to  the  same  people,  the  Jews,  both  speak  of  a  punishment, 
"  and  a  very  dreadful  punishment,  to  this  people — Both  are 
"  speaking  of  a  temporal  punishment,  and  not  of  eternal,  to 
"  this  people."  Thus  far  our  author  on  the  punishment 
threatened  the  Jews  ;  we  shall  now  proceed  to  notice  Mr. 
B — 's  view  of  punishment  to  which  the  Gentiles  are  ob- 
noxious. 

(221)  M  The  history  of  the  acts  of  the  apostles,  contains 
11  an  account  of  their  preaching  for  thirty  years,  but  not 
"  once  is  the  subject  of  Hell  or  Gehenna  torments,  men- 
"  tioncd  by  them.  They  were  commanded  to  preach  the 
"  Gospel  to  every  creature,  and  they  did  so,  but  to  no  crea- 
ture under  heaven  did  they  ever  preach  this  doctrine. 
"  No  living  being  did  they  ever  threaten  with  such  a  pun- 
"  ishment. — (225)  Another  fact  is,  that  the  salvation  re- 
"  vealed  by  the  Gospel  is  never  spoken  of  as  a  salvation 
"  from  Hell  or  endless  misery.  No  such  salvation  was  ever 
"  promised  or  predicted  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  no  such 
"salvation  was  ever  pieached  by  Christ,  or  his  apostles. 
"  Our  Lord  received  the  name  Jesus,  because  he  should  save 
"  his  people  from  their  sins.  But  I  do  not  find  that  he  re- 
"  ceived  this  name  or  anv  other  because  he  should  save 


M  LECTURE  I. 

u  them  from  Hell.  Our  Lord  and  his  apostles  in  their 
44  preaching,  proposed  by  it  to  turn  men  from  darkness  to 
u  light;  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God  ;  from  idols  to 
44  serve  the  living  God  ;  from  the  course  of  this  world  ;  and 
"  from  all  sin  to  holiness  ;  but  where  do  we  ever  read  of 
44  their  proposing  to  save  them  from  Hell  ?  No  such  salva- 
"  tion  was  preached  by  our  Lord.  In  all  (those)  texts 
11  where  he  speaks  of  Hell,  he  was  not  preaching  the  Gos- 
11  pel,  but  addressing  the  Jews  about  the  temporal  calamitk 
44  coming  on  them  as  a  people.  In  no  instance  did  he  ever 
"  exhort  men  to  bring  forth  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,  be- 
"  cause  they  were  exposed  to  Hell  torments  in  a  future 
44  state — (230)  The  apostles  say  not  a  word  about  Hell  to 
41  any  man." 

Thus  have  we  before  us  in  Mr.  B — 's  own  words  his 
view  of  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  as  it  applies  to  all 
mankind,  to  every  man  under  heaven.  Let  us  now  as  lo- 
gically as  we  can  examine  and  compare  these  sentiments. 

1st.  I  must  institute  an  inquiry  upon  the  terms  he  uses 
in  this  statement,  for  instance  "endless  misery" — 44 eter- 
nal punishment ."  Endless  and  eternal  are  terms,  as  here 
used  by  Mr.  B —  to  which  I  object ;  the  introduction  and 
application  of  them  is  contrary  to  covenant.  Mr.  B — 's 
Inquiry  is  not  on  Lie  subject  of  endless  or  eternal  misery 
but  on  future  misery.  His  system  is  opposed  to  that  of 
Chauncey,  Huntington,  &c.  as  much  as  it  is  to  that  of  Ed- 
wards, that  is,  opposed  to  a  limited  punishment  in  futurity, 
as  much  as  to  an  eternal  punishment  in  futurity  ;  he  should 
therefore  always  say,  tem/wra/ punishment,  when  he  means 
those  calamities  which  come  on  men  in  this  present  life, 
and  future  punishment,  when  he  means  the  miseries  of  a  fu- 
ture life.  This  distinction  is  not  a  quibble,  it  is  a  logical 
and  important  one,  because  it  divides  the  parties  in  this  dis- 
cussion into  two,  which  otherwise  would  be  three  :  it  makes 
temporal  punishment  one  party,  md  future  limited  with  fu- 
ture eternal^  the  other.     Future  is  a  common  term  equally 


LECTURE  I.  13 

applicable  to  those  who  hold  a  limited,  as  to  those  who  hold 
an  eternal  punishment.  And  these  terms,  also,  must  be 
settled  and  have  a  distinct  voice,  or  we  shall  never  come  to 
any  safe  conclusion.  Mr.  B —  it  is  true  has  not  in  his  dis- 
cussion preserved  this  distinctness  of  expression,  but  that  is 
his  fault,  he  ought  to  have  been  thus  distinct,  for,  he  cove- 
nants with  us,  when  he  takes  his  ground, to  consider  future 
not  eternal  punishment  as  the  subject  of  opposition  ;  and 
also  that  by  proving  Gehenna  punishment  to  be  only  tem- 
poral, he  means  to  prove  that  there  is  no  future  punishment. 
For  if  Mr.  B —  is  allowed  to  select  these  terms,  each  of 
them,  as  may  best  suit  the  occasion  of  his  argument,  I 
throw  up  the  contest,  having  no  hold  upon  him.  If  I  resist 
him  upon  future  limited  punishment,  he  will  flee  to  future 
eternal,  and  so  vice  versa.  I  am  not  now  charging  Mr.  B — 
with  a  design  to  be  unfair,  I  believe  it  to  be  otherwise.  My 
persuasion  is,  that  he  intends  by  his  assumptions  to  oppose 
future  punishment  in  both  degrees ;  if  he  had  not,  he,  with 
his  accredited  candor  and  honesty,  would  have  told  us  so. 
If  he  had  intended  to  admit,  that  there  is  a  state  of 
punishment  or  misery  independent  of  what  has  been  ascrib- 
ed to  Sheol,  Hades  and  Gehenna,  he  most  assuredly  would 
have  told  us  so  ;  but  of  this  he  has  said  never  a  word  ;  and 
having  agreed  at  the  outset  to  consider,  in  his  "  Inquiry, " 
the  subject  of  misery  or  punishment  in  the  present  state,  in 
opposition  to  suffering  in  the  future  state,  we  shall  hold  to 
the  engagement ;  and  therefore  whenever  Mr.  B —  uses  the 
term  eternal  or  endless  in  this  argument,  he  means  simply 
tuture. 

A  second  remark  must  be  on  the  ideas  which  mav  be 
likely  to  be  conveyed  by  the  seemingly  indefinite  use  of 
Hell  as  a  term  expressing  the  idea  of  punishment  or  misery. 
"  Let  it  be  kept  in  remembrance"  (says  Mr.  B —  as  before 
cited)  M  that  neither  Gehenna,  nor  any  other  word  is  used  in 
"  the  Old  Testament,  to  express''  the  idea  of  future  misery. 
Here  his  meaning  is  plain,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Jews, 


14  LECTURE  I. 

there  is  nothing  addressed  to  them,  he  says,  expressive  of  fu- 
ture punishment.     We  inquire  next  whether  the  same  sen- 
timent is  not  conveyed  to  the  Gentiles,  b}    the  non  use  of 
Gehenna  or  Hell,  that  is  by  saying  nothing  about  Hell  to  the 
Gentiles,  as  the  apostles  never  said  any  thing  of  He  11  to 
them  :    for  Gehenna  was  not  known  to  them  as  a  place  of 
misery,  or  as  an  emblem  of  misery  :  whence  I  suppose  Mr. 
B —  intends  that  we  should  conclude  that  nothing  was  said 
to  the  world  about  any  future  state  of  misery.    If  this  is  not 
Mr.  B — 's  sentiment,  or  if  he  did  not  intend  that  we  should 
come  to  this  conclusion,  he  ought  to  have  told  us,  that  though 
the  apostles  did  not  threaten  Gentiles  with  the  punishment 
of  Hell  or  Gehenna,  yet  they  told  them  that  punishment  was 
prepared  for  all  the  wicked  :  but  he  does  not  say,  nor  inti- 
mate this  ;  nay,  so  far  from  it,  he  represents  the  apostles  as 
teaching  the  Gentiles  the  whole  Gospel,  without  saying  a 
word  to  any  creature  under  heaven  on  the  subject  of  a  future 
punishment.     "  No  living  being  (says  Mr.  B — )  did  they 
ever  threaten  with  such  a  punishment."     The  Mediation  of 
Christ  too,  he  tells  us,  was  not  designed  as  a  remedy  in  this 
case.     u  No  such  salvation  was  ever  preached  by  Christ  or 
his  apostles." 

We  have  now,  as  we  think,  taken  a  comprehensive  and  a 
fair  view  of  the  ground  assumed  by  Mr.  Balfour  in  his  In- 
quiry. We  have  endeavoured  to  distinguish  be1  ween  the 
mere  casualties  of  phraseology,  and  the  visible  drift  of  his 
argument.  Those  expressions  which  are  to  us  inaccurate 
and  irrelevant  we  have  pointed  out,  and  others  we  conceive 
more  in  point  have  been  accepted  and  applied  to  the  adn  it- 
ted  question.  And  there  is  no  other  conclusion  to  whieh 
we  can  come,  and  we  think,  in  the  exercise  of  the  candor 
of  which  we  are  capable,  that  there  is  no  other  conclusion 
intended  for  us  by  our  author  himself  but  this,  namely, 

That  the  scriptures  neither  assert,  nor  teach,  nor  admit  the 
doctrine  of  future  punishment. 

It  will  be  our  next  business  to  inquire  what  this  position 


LECTURE  I.  13 

includes,  and  what  consequences  are  necessarily  and  in- 
evitably  involved-  And  here  I  am  aware  of  clanger  ;  it  is 
no  uncommon  thing  in  dispute,  for  the  arguist  to  draw  con- 
clusions and  consequences  which  the  opposite  party  will 
deny.  I  should  Be  sorry,  in  this  case,  to  fill  into  such  a 
snare,  for,  we  are  not  contending  for  triumph  but  for  truth. 
I  must  therefore  request  my  hearers  to  weigh  well  those 
reasonings  I  shall  offer  upon  the  conclusions  drawn,  and  if 
they  arc  found  to  be  just,  no  bare  denial,  on  the  part  of  Mr. 

2 ahull  be  admitted  as  counter  evidence  :    let  him,  if  lie 

can,  disprove  or  invalidate  this  reasoning  by  superior  argu- 
mentation, but  a  mere  denial  of  the  consequence  will  be  re- 
jected. 

1.  The  first  consequence  inevitably  involved  in  this  po- 
sition is  this  :  That  if  there  be  no  future  punishment  for 
the  wicked,  then,  in  the  constitution  of  the  divine  govern- 
ment, there  is  no  future  retribution.  That  we  may  be  as 
clear  as  possible,  observe  :  The  scriptures  alone  give  a  just 
view  of  the  divine  character  and  government ;  on  this  sub- 
ject we  are  all  agreed. — Mr.  B —  says  these  scriptures  no- 
where teach  or  admit  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment; 
then  in  the  divine  constitution  there  is  no  future  retribution. 
On  the  subject  of  retribution  simply  there  can  be  no  dispute. 
We  all  admit  that  a  just  and  righteous  government  is  and 
must  be  administered  in  the  exercise  of  retributive  justice. 
Rewards  and  punishments  are  the  necessary  consequences — 
yes,  rewards  and  punishments,  the  one  cannot  be  without 
the  other ;  in  the  nature  of  things  it  must  be  so.  I  need  not 
spend  a  moment  to  prove,  that  there  is  a  reward  for  the 
righteous :  and  it  is  equally  unnecessary  to  prove  that  the 
reward  of  the  righteous  is  to  be  in  a  future  state.  Reward, 
in  the  constitution  of  the  divine  government,  follows  right- 
eousness, and  it  is  a  reward  meet  for  righteousness,  a  bless- 
ed future  reward. And  we  read  in  the  scriptures  of  *  the 

reward  of  unrighteousness  ;'  '  W  oe  unto  the  wicked,  for  the 
reward  of  his  hands  shall  be  given  him.'      The  reward  of 


16  LECTURE  1. 

the  wicked  is  *  indignation  and  wrath  upon  every  soul  of 
man  that  doeth  evil.'  This  reward  of  punishment  must  be 
future  for  the  same  reason  as  the  reward  of  the  righteous  is 
future  :  they  are  both  individually  moral  agents,  and  must 
be  dealt  with  in  strict  justice  equally  in  a  moral  way — the 
reward  of  punishment  must  follow  sooner  or  later  the  work 
of  wickedness,  as  the  reward  of  happiness  follows  the  work 
of  righteousness.  Now  this  system  of  moral  retributive 
justice  Mr.  B — 's  scheme  prostrates  in  the  dust :  in  the 
constitution  of  government  as  exhibited  by  him,  there  is  no 
retribution.  He  says  the  scriptures  nowhere  teach  it — it 
was  never  declared  by  prophet  or  apostle  by  God  or  Christ 
to  any  creature  under  heaven.  It  may  be  objected  here,  that 
the  wicked  are  saved  from  deserved  punishment  by  the  me- 
diation of  Christ.  I  answer,  Mr.  B —  says  nothing  about 
such  salvation  from  any  future  calamity ;  indeed  he  says 
"  no  such  salvation  was  ever  preached."  According  to  our 
author's  system,  there  is  in  the  scheme  of  divine  govern- 
ment  no  retribution — no  rewards  nor  punishments  in  a  fu- 
ture state. 

2.  If  the  scriptures  do  not  assert  the  doctrine  of  future 
punishment  in  regard  to  the  wicked,  then  the  scriptures  do 
not  teach  or  assert  any  divine  law. — Law,  supposes  a  law- 
giver, and  a  lawgiver  must  be  the  agent  of  authority. — The 
law  is  the  rule  of  right  and  wrong  ;  without  law  there  could 
be  neither  right  nor  wrong.  A  legislator  when  he  issues 
his  laws,  promises  rewards  to  the  obedient,  and  threatens 
punishments  to  the  disobedient :  to  talk  of  law  without 
these  sanctions  is  all  idle  babbling :  this  system  of  sanction 
Mr.  B — 's  scheme  does  not  include,  and  therefore  in  his 
scheme  of  government  there  is  no  law.  God  may  be  re- 
presented in  the  scriptures  as  teaching  man  a  variety  of 
maxims,  and  offering  him  what  may  appear  to  be  good  and 
suitable  advice  ;  but  he  lays  down  no  law  unless  he  promises 
and  threatens  ;  lawgivers,  all  that  we  have  been  acquainted 
with,  do  this  ;   Mr.  B —  says  God  has  not  done  so  to  any 


LECTURE  I.  17 

soul  under  heaven.  If  Mr.  B — 's  system  admits  of  any 
moral  government,  which  I  am  constrained  to  say  I  cannot 
see,  it  must  be  a  government  confined  wholly  to  this  present 
visible  state,  for  all  the  government  his  system  reveals  ends 
at  death  ;  all  is  dissolved  and  broken  up  with  the  breaking 
up  of  this  material  system.  But  what  sort  of  a  government 
is  this  ?  it  has  no  moral  character  in  its  constitution  :  and 
then  his  theory  flies  in  the  very  face  of  scripture — *  It  is 
appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after  this  the  judg- 
ment.' But  what  judgment  can  there  be  after  death,  if  all 
moral  government  ceases  at  death  ? 

3.  If  the  scriptures  do  not  assert  a  future  retribution  in 
regard  to  the  wicked,  then  the  scriptures  do  not  assert  the 
character  of  divine  justice.  There  is  nothing  in  Mr.  B — 's 
scheme  for  justice  to  do.  In  the  constitution  of  the  uni- 
verse, there  is  no  state,  place  or  condition  in  which  men  can 
be  punished  :  as  to  justice,  judging  and  awarding  men  ac- 
cording to  their  works,  it  is  a  mere  fable ;  for  their  not  be- 
ing so  rewarded  is  by  an  absolute  necessity ;  their  punish- 
ment is  morally  impossible,  and  justice  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it.  It  applies  equally  to  the  happiness  of  the  righteous, 
if  any  such  thing  as  future  happiness  can  be  made  out  in 
Mr.  B — 's  "  Inquiry,"  for  their  happiness  is  the  effect  of 
necessity,  not  the  award  of  justice.  All  moral  agency  on 
the  part  of  both  God  and  man  is  totally  destroyed.  There 
is  therefore  no  such  thing  as  divine  justice. 

4.  If  the  scriptures  do  not  assert  the  doctrine  of  future 
retribution  then  they  cannot  reveal  to  man  any  way  of  sal- 
vation. Upon  Mr.  B — 's  system  man  is  not  exposed  to  the 
divine  displeasure,  his  punishment  in  a  future  state  is  im- 
possible, what  then  can  Christ  do  for  him  ?  By  the  consti- 
tution of  nature  he  is  in  a  state  of  safety,  not  at  all  exposed 
to  misery,  there  is  no  Gospel,  therefore,  that  can  apply  to  his 
case.  As  to  man's  exposedness  to  misery  in  the  present 
state,  it  is  admitted  the  Gospel  does  nothing  for  him  ;  the 
Jews  suffered  and  perished  in  Gehenna,  and  all  the  Gentiles 


15  LECTURE  I. 

endured  the  common  lot  of  mortals,  without  any  relief  from 
the  Gospel ;  and  when  they  died  all  suffering  ceased  from  ne- 
cessity, the  Gospel  still  doing  nothing  for  them  :  what  way 
of  salvation  then  can  the  scriptures  reveal  ?  Indeed  salvation 
is  altogether  a  figment,  an  idle  invention,  as  irrelevant  to 
man's  case  as  are  any  of  the  fictions  of  the  Hindoo  mythol- 
ogy, or  the  extravagant  romances  of  the  Mahomedan  impos- 
ture. No,  my  hearers— Mr.  B —  can  never  say,  by  the  same 
organs  of  speech,  that  the  scriptures  deny  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  retribution,  and  yet  that  they  assert  the  doctrine  of 
human  salvation  by  the  mediation  of  Jesus  Christ. 

5.  That  volume  of  scriptures  which  does  not  admit  a  fu- 
ture retribution,  does  not  reveal  or  assert  a  future  state. 
Upon  Mr.  B — 's  system  it  is  very  doubtful  whether  man 
has  an  immortal  soul ;  but  if  he  declare  he  has,  there  is  no 
state  provided  for  it  in  any  world  besides  this.  Hades, 
Tartarus  or  Gehenna  receives  all  that  we  know  of  man,  and 
only  what  is  mortal.  Mr.  B —  does  not  preserve  the  im- 
mortal man,  nor  convey  him  to  any  immortal  state  of  exist- 
ence :  Hades  receives  all,  and  Hades  hides  all,  and  Hades 
destroys  all,  for  aught  Mr.  B —  tells  us.  Sheol  or  Hades 
receives  the  body,  not  the  soul,  but  this  is  no  place  of  misery 
or  punishment.  Gehenna  is  a  place  of  punishment  or  mise- 
ry, but  only  for  the  body,  and  that  only  temporal,  in  this 
present  world  :  what  of  any  thing  future  or  immortal  have 
we  here  ?  But  this  is  all  we  have  upon  Mr  B — 's  scheme. 
Hence  all  is  reduced  to  a  mere  system  of  materiality.  Hades 
receives  and  consumes  all  that  is  material,  Gehenna  furnish- 
es all  the  punishment  of  which  man  is  capable,  and  this  is 
in  a  material  not  a  spiritual  state,  and  for  Jews  only  ;  neither 
is  man  capable  of  suffering  in  a  spiritual  state ;  in  the  con- 
stitution of  the  universe  there  is  no  spiritual  state  of  retri- 
bution.—This  is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  Mr.  B — 's 
system,  there  is  no  avoiding  it  upon  his  mode  of  reasoning. 
Indeed  he  has  taken  no  small  pains  to  prove  that  the  soul, 
the  immortal  part,  can  have  no  share  in  the  sufferings  his 


LECTURE  I.  lji 

system  involves,  and  still  farther  to  render  soul  suffering 
impossible  he  criticises  the  immortal  soul  away  and  substi- 
tutes for  it  animal  spirit.  Now  all  this,  and  much  more, 
goes  to  show  that  Mr.  B — 's  system  is  material  in  opposi- 
tion to  spiritual — a  mere  exhibition  of  the  gross  and  perish- 
ing part  of  God's  universe,  while  that  which  is  moral,  im- 
mortal, and  eternal  is  carefully  concealed.  The  just  and 
righteous  retributions  of  eternity  are  denied,  and  so  a  veil  is 
drawn  over  the  awful  realities  of  a  future  state. 

6.  The  next  consequence  is  that  there  is  no  divine  reve- 
lation. It  is  true  Mr.  B —  is  constantly  appealing  to  the 
scriptures  as  a  divine  revelation,  and  refuses  to  appeal  to 
any  other  testimony ;  but  still  the  system  he  professes  to 
gather  from  revelation  is  subversive  of  that  revelation  itself: 
he  evidently  makes  every  thing,  of  importance  to  him,  in 
proving  a  negative  ;  that  is,  the  scriptures  are  made  to  con- 
tradict what  they  do  assert,  by  what  they  do  not  assert.  For 
instance,  the  scriptures  assert  man's  moral  accountability  ; 
but  the  scriptures  do  not  assert  that  the  account  is  to  be 
rendered  in  the  grave,  therefore  the  scriptures  do  assert  that 
man  is  not  morally  accountable,  nor  obnoxious  to  punish- 
ment. Again  :  the  scriptures  assert  that  sinners  shall  be  lia- 
ble to  punishment,  soul  and  body,  in  Gehenna  :  but  the 
scriptures  do  not  say  that  Gehenna  is  the  place  of  endless 
misery  for  all  nations ;  therefore  the  scriptures  do  declare 
that  Gehenna  is  not  a  place  of  punishment  for  sinners. 
You  see  Mr.  B — 's  refuge  is  in  negatives.  The  scriptures 
do  not  reveal  a  future  retribution,  neither  prophet  nor  apos- 
tle, no  writer,  Old  Testament  or  New,  ever  did  assert  that 
there  was  a  future  retribution  or  a  place  of  future  punish- 
ment, neither  is  any  creature  under  heaven  threatened  with 
any.  No  salvation  from  future  punishment  was  ever  preach- 
ed by  Christ  or  his  apostles.  Christ  was  not  revealed  as  a 
Saviour  from  any  future  punishment  or  misery.  Now  I 
ask,  what  the  scriptures  do  reveal  ?  for  upon  Mr.  B— 's 
principle  they  reveal  nothing  but  negatives.     They  assert . 


20  LECTURE  I. 

that  in  the  constitution  of  the  universe  there  is  no  retribu- 
tion.— They  assert  that  there  is  no  law  upon  which  a  retri- 
bution can  be  founded. — Thev  assert  that  there  can  be  no 
retributive  justice. — They  assert  that  there  is  no  salvation 
from  retribution,  because  there  is  no  retribution — Thev  as- 
sert  that  there  is  no  future  state,  or  they  reveal  no  future 
state  of  retribution. — What  next !  Why,  they  reveal  no- 
thing, or  they  assert  that  to  know  nothing  on  the  future  des- 
tinies of  men  is  to  know  all  God  intended  us  to  know.  But 
then  this  cannot  be  called  revelation  ;  for  a  divine  revelation 
must  impart  a  knowledge  of  divine  things,  to  which  knowl- 
edge nature  cannot  attain  without  such  revelation  ;  but  all 
that  Mr.  B — 's  revelation  teaches  us,  is  a  mere  ignorance, 
an  ignorance  possessed  and  enjoyed  by  all  the  barbarous  and 
uncivilized  of  man,  in  all  dark  ages  and  places  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world  to  the  present  day. 

7.  The  final  consequence  is,  that  Mr.  B — ?s  theory  leaves 
us  without  any  God  ;  at  least  his  theory  reveals  none. — No 
divine,  moral,  superintending  spiritual  agency  by  which  a 
universe  of  intelligences  is  created  and  controlled.  But  this 
consequence  is  too  awful  for  discussion,  and  the  language 
which  must  necessarily  be  employed,  did  we  pursue  the 
reasoning,  would  be  such  as  the  friends  of  our  author  would 
pronounce  severe  and  intemperate.  I  therefore  conclude  by 
giving  it  as  my  opinion,  that  Mr.  B —  had  no  idea  of  the 
consequences  involved  in  his  adventurous  theory.  We  have 
been  in  the  habit  of  considering  him  in  the  light  of  a  learn- 
ed, liberal,  pious  and  honest  man  ;  and  we  wish  to  insinuate 
nothing  to  prejudice  this  good  opinion.  The  subject  too 
we  are  called  to  investigate  is  a  theological  question — a  the- 
ological speculation  some  would  call  it,  and  therefore  ought 
to  admit  of  the  most  free  discussion.  But  still  it  is,  as  Mr. 
B —  himself  acknowledges,  a  subject  "  solemn  and  import- 
ant," a  subject  not  to  be  treated  lightly,  a  subject  not  to  be 
abandoned  to  the  fancy  and  the  passions,  but  to  be  handled 
with  great  seriousness  and  reverence,  which  I  hope  we  shall 


LECTURE  I.  21 

l)j  enabled  to  do,  and  so  far  as  we  have  gone,  I  trust  it  will 
be  found,  that  we  have  been  serious  and  candid. 

This  first  discourse  has  been  to  ascertain,  with  precision, 
the  exact  ground  taken  by  our  author  ;  we  have,  after  care- 
ful examination,  found  that  he  sets  up  his  theory  upon  a  per- 
suasion, that  the  scriptures  admit  of  no  retribution  in  a  future 
state.  This  ground  we  have  examined  in  all  its  length  and 
breadth,  and  we  have  found  that  it  necessarily  involves  con- 

7  J 

sequences  the  most  awful  and  perplexing,  consequences, 
such  as  reduce  God's  whole  universe  of  nature  to  a  system  of 
materialism,  a  system  of  physical  machinery,  a  universe  of 
body  without  soul,  a  mass  of  matter  without  intelligence,  a 
world  without  a  God.  Thus,  instructed  by  our  text,  we  have 
tried  the  spirit  of  our  author's  book,  and  we  think  have  found 
it  to  be  not  of  God.  But  we  have  yet  to  examine  its  parts,  and 
its  methods  of  argument,  its  citations  and  interpretations  of 
scripture,  its  answers  to  objections  and  its  solemn  calls  to  free 
inquiry.  Our  immediate  object  after  this  discourse  will  be  to 
set  up  and  establish,  in  opposition  to  Mr.  B —  this  position, 
namely,  That  in  the  constitution  of  the  divine  government 
there  is  a  future  righteous  retribution. 

?  Now  to  him  that  is  of  power  to  stablish  you  according  to 
the  Gospel,  and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to 
the  revelation  of  the  mystery  which  was  kept  secret  since  the 
world  began  ;  but  now  is  made  manifest,  and  by  the  scrip- 
tures of  the  prophets,  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
everlasting  God,  made  known  to  all  nations  for  the  obedience 
of  faith,  to  God  only  wise  be  glory,  through  Jesus  Christ,  for* 
ever,  Amen.' 


JUBGWUtl  S3L 


Divine  Government   constituted   upon  the  principle  of  Future 

Retribution. 


IN  THE  DAY  THAT  THOU  EATEST  THEREOF,  THOU  SHALT  SURELY 

die. — Genesis  ii.  17. 

Divine  government  and  human  accountability  are,  in 
our  view,  inseparable.     The  character  of  God  displays  the 
highest  moral  attributes  of  which  we  can  conceive  :    the 
highest  attributes  displayed  in  the  human  character  are  also 
moral  attributes — they  are  of  the  same  nature  as  those  in  the 
Divine  Being ;  man  received  these  from  his  Creator  in  the 
day  in  which  he  was  created ;    '  God  said,  Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,  after  our  likeness.'      But  man  is  a  crea- 
ture, his  being  is  derived,  his  constitution  is  according  to 
that  rule  prescribed  by  his  Sovereign  Creator ;    he  must 
therefore  be  subordinate,  it  cannot  be  otherwise.  The  prin- 
ciple upon  which  God  constitutes  our  world  involves  his 
own  sovereignty,  and  our  accountability.    No  sooner  is  man 
complete  in  his  character  before  God,  than  God  proceeds  to 
reveal  to  him  his  Law.     '  The  Lord  God  took  the  man  and 
put  him  into  the  garden  of  Eden,  to  dress  it  and  to  keep  it. 
And  the  Lord  God  commanded  the  man,  saying,  Of  every 
tree  of  the  garden  thou  may  est  freely  eat ;  but  of  the  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it,  For  in 
the  day  that  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  dieS 

Here  is  the  institution  of  government  among  men  ;  and  it 
is  a  moral  government,  instituted  upon  the  principle  of  retri- 
bution. This  is  the  principle  Mr.  Balfour's  theory  goes  to 
demolish.  He  says,  and  in  the  strongest  terms  too,  that 
there  is  no  state  of  punishment  in  the  future  world — that  the 
doctrine  was  never  asserted  nor  taught  by  any  of  the  sacred 


LECTURE  H. 


as 


writers — neither  was  the  salvation  of  Jesus  any  salvation 
from  future  punishment — Ins  theory  goes  so  far  as  to  de- 
clare, that  in  the  constitution  of  the  universe,  there  is  no  fu- 
ture retribution  for  the  wicked.  He  admits,  that  wicked 
men  are  obnoxious  to  divine  displeasure,  because  of  their 
provoking  iniquities— he  represents  particularly  the  Jews  as 
punished  exceedingly  for  the  ir  sins,  but  all  the  punishment 
he  allows,  is  confined  to  this  present  visible  state.  Here, 
however,  Mr.  B —  admits  of  retribution,  though  his  whole 
theory  goes  to  destroy  it.  If  he  admit  of  any  punishment 
as  due  to  sin,  he  admits  of  sin  as  a  moral  evil,  and  so  he  ad- 
mits of  a  law,  of  government  executive,  of  retributive  jus- 
tice, *  for,  sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law,  and  by  the  law 
is  the  knowledge  of  sin.'  The  question  we  have  now  to 
settle  is,  whether  the  retributions  of  justice  are  temporal  or 
eternal,  or  rather,  whether  retributive  justice  be  wholly  ex- 
ercised in  this  state,  or  extended  to  a  future  state.  One  thing 
is  very  clear  from  the  words  of  holy  writ  placed  at  the  head 
of  this  discourse,  that,  in  the  administration  of  the  divine 
law  there  is  a  retribution,  and  this  retribution  too  is  exhib- 
ited under  a  threatening  aspect,  c  In  the  day  that  thou  eatest 
thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die.' 

Let  us  now  consider  the  terms  here  expressed,  and  first, 
they  are  terms  of  threatening.  Death  is  threatened,  and  this 
is  the  only  expressed  term  of  the  retribution.  The  promise 
of  a  happy  reward  to  obedience,  is  rather  implied  than  ex- 
pressed ;  *  Of  every  tree  of  the  garden  thou  may  est  freely 
eat,'  and  whatever  other  capacity  man  might  have  had  for 
enjoyment  of  good,  would  doubtless  have  been  indulged  : 
but  most  visibly  before7  us  there  is  nothing  but  threatening. 
Mr.  B—  in  several  places,  decries  all  obedience  under  a 
sense  of  penalty  ;  he  seems  to  contend  for  that  disinterested 
benevolence,  which  has  distinguished  the  divinity  of  the  new 
school  :  but  the  Allwise  Creator,  who  knows  what  is  best 
adapted  to  man  in  every  state,  yes,  better  than  either  of  us 
can  know,  has  first  fenced  man's  virtue  round  with  law  and 


91  LECTURE  II. 

terrors.  To  say  (what  is  very  likely  to  be  said)  that  this 
method  did  not  succeed,  is  a  shifting  of  the  question,  but 
not  a  true  argument  :  for  the  disobedience  of  our  first 
mother  did  not  occur,  till  she  was  gained  over  by  a  contra- 
diction of  the  lawgiver,  •  Ye  shall  not  surely  die.'  This 
surely  was  a  belief  in  the  Universal  doctrine  in  the  gross 
form,  and  her  persuasion  of  the  threatening  being  untrue, 
produced  this  act  of  disobedience  ;  that  it  was  an  act  of  dis- 
obedience she  did  know,  but  the  hope  of  impunity  prompt- 
ed the  crime ;  while  she  believed  in  the  threatening  she 
maintained  her  virtue.  And  this  experiment  is  the  grand 
trial  of  the  age,  '  Ye  shall  not  surely  die.'  And  here  it  is  in 
place  to  remark  that  Universalists  of  the  class  of  Winches- 
ter, Murrav,  &:c.  stand  on  the  ground  for  which  I  am  con- 
tending,  namely,  a  threatened  punishment  for  disobedience, 
a  motive  for  virtue.  And  I  am  truly  happy  to  see  so  many 
of  that  class  stand  forward  to  vindicate,  and  espouse  those 
that  vindicate  the  doctrine  of  a  future  retribution  :  and  I  am 
equally  sorry  to  see  so  many  of  the  reputed  orthodox  so 
willing  to  let  this  very  important  truth  fall  into  disrepute, 
without,  on  their  parts,  a  suitable  effort  to  maintain  it,  as 

once  delivered  to  the  saints. But  to  pursue  the  point. 

The  penalty  threatened  is  death;  and  here  the  question  is 
supposed  to  pinch — What  is  the  nature  of  that  penalty,  here 
threatened  under  the  form  of  death  ?  What  is  death  ?  This 
difficulty,  if  it  be  one,  is  to  be  met  two  ways,  and  both  in 
agreement.  Retribution  is  the  subject — rewards  and  pun- 
ishments.— Reward  is  one  side  of  the  case  and  punish- 
ment is  the  other.  What  would  Adam's  reward  have  been, 
think  ye,  had  he  maintained  his  obedience  through  his  pro- 
bation ?  would  it  have  been  a  temporal  one,  a  reward  con- 
fined to  this  visible  and  natural  state  of  things,  or  a  reward 
stretching  out  into  the  regions  of  an  eternal  scene  ?  Surely 
I  need  not  press  this  inquiry,  it  must  be  admitted,  and  our 
opponent  will  not  refuse  his  assent,  that  an  eternal  spiritual 
blessedness  would  have   been  his  reward,  for  this  reward 


LECTURE  If.  25 

Mr.  B —  grants  to  every  ungodly  rebel  at  his  death,  and  surely 
he  will  not  deny  a  heaven  of  spiritual  happiness  to  such  as 
finish  tjieir  course  in  righteousness.  But  then,  the  inevitable 
consequence  from  such  premises — man's  punishment,  if  he 
transgress,  must  be  spiritual  and  future,  a  punishment 
adapted  to  his  moral  character  in  a  future  state.  The  pun- 
ishment must  from  necessity  be  in  a  future  state,  a  punish- 
ment adapted  to  his  moral,  rather  than  to  his  natural  condi- 
tion. Suppose  God  had  cut  off  Adam,  body  and  soul,  im- 
mediately upon  the  transgression,  his  extinction  would  have 
been  no  proper  retribution — retribution  places  a  moral  agent 
in  circumstances  suitable  to  his  moral  character,  but  ex- 
tinction destroys  man's  moral  capacity  for  a  just  retribution, 
and  also  arrests  the  process  of  justice  by  which  that  retribu- 
tion is  awarded.  Or  suppose  that  Adam  had  died  a  natural 
death  on  the  day  of  transgression,  and  his  body  had  been 
given  to  the  dust,  and  his  immortal  soul  translated  to  the 
abodes  of  perfect  bliss,  then  there  would  have  been  no  just 
retribution  ;  his  sufferings  would  have  been  in  that  part  of 
his  character  in  which  there  was  no  capacity  for  receiving  a 
just  retribution,  and  that  part  of  his  character  to  which  the 
punishment  was  due,  and  which  part  only  was  capable  of 
receiving  it,  escapes  with  impunity.  We  must  then  look  for 
a  just  retribution  in  some  other  way. 

And  now  to  lay  aside  all  supposition,  let  us  look  at  the 
fact  as  it  stands  before  us.  The  threatening  is  death,  and 
Adam  exposes  himself  to  the  penalty  by  transgression  ;  but 
natural  death  is  not  inflicted ;  he  lives  930  years,  and  be- 
comes the  father  of  many  generations,  from  whence  we  con- 
clude that  natural  death,  the  mere  extinction  of  animal  life, 
was  not  the  penalty  threatened  :  we  have  already  seen,  in 
argument,  that  natural  death  could  have  been  no  just  retri- 
bution, and  now  we  see  that  that  was  not  inflicted,  and  there- 
fore we  must  look  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  threatening  un- 
der other  circumstances.  But  we  must  assume  a  position 
here,  namely,  that  this  threatening  was  executed,  or  at  least 


itf  LECTURE  II. 

was  in  the  way  of  legal  process,  so  that  Adam  was  the  sub- 
ject of  death  in  the  clay  of  his  transgression.  In  order  to 
set  this  position  in  a  clear  point  of  light,  we  must  establish 
an  appeal  to  the  scriptures :  for  one  scripture  interprets  an- 
other, and  without  the  New  Testament,  especially,  it  would 
be  difficult,  not  to  say  impossible,  to  understand  a  great  part 
of  the  Old.  Now  what  do  the  Holy  Scriptures  say  on  the 
question  of  human  transgression  ?  How  do  they  describe 
the  condition  of  the  transgressor  ?  we  shall  begin  with  a 
view  of  that  very  sin  now  before  us — Rom.  v.  12.  18.  '  By 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin  ;  and 
so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned — By 
the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condem- 
nation.' Or  by  one  offence  retribution  was  awarded  to  con- 
demnation. Here  death  is  the  condemnation  awarded  for 
sin,  and  it  is  evidently  a  spiritual  death,  a  loss  of  divine  fa- 
vour, for  this  condemnation  to  death  is  here  contrasted  with 
that  life  to  which  man  is  restored  by  the  salvation  of  Christ. 
*  For  the  wages  of  sin  is  death  ;  but  the  gift  of  God  is  eter- 
nal life  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.'  Surely  no  one 
will  attempt  to  prove  that  by  death,  is  here  meant  an  ex- 
tinction of  animal  life.  But  farther.  John  viii.  24.  Jesus 
said  unto  the  Jews,  l  If  ye  believe  not  that  I  am  he  ye  shall 
die  in  your  sins.'  Does  not  every  one  see  that  this  is  to 
die  in  a  state  of  unpardoned  guilt,  and  remain  exposed  to 
the  retribution  of  condemnation  ?  Again,  1  John  iii.  14. 
1  We  know  that  we  have  passed  from  death  unto  life.'  Can 
this  mean  any  thing  but  passing  from  a  state  of  condemna- 
tion to  a  state  of  divine  favour  ?  Certainly  they  had  not  pass- 
ed from  a  state  in  which  they  were  liable  to  natural  death, 
for,  they  all  died,  but  the  death  from  which  they  had  passed 
was  the  death  of  guilt;  they  had  been  'dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins,'  but  through  faith  in  Christ,  they  had  attained  to 
eternal  life.  Again,  what  Jesus  said  to  the  Jews,  John  v. 
24.  ■  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  you,  He  that  heareth  my 
word,  and  believeth  on  him  that  sent  me,  hath  everlasting 


LECTURE  If. 

life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemnation  ;    but   is  passed 
from  death  unto  life.'    John  in  his  first  epistle  says,  l  There 
is  a  sin  unto  death — and  there  is  a  sin  not  unto  death.'   We 
know  there  is  no  sin    but  what  is  connected  with  natural 
death,  and  therefore,  that  sin  which  is  unto  death,  must  ex- 
pose to  some  thing  be)  ond  the  death  of  the   body.     Pas- 
sages might  be  multiplied  to  confirm  and  illustrate  this  point, 
but  it  would  be  only  taking  up  your  time  to  little  purpose  ; 
the  thing  can  be  but  provtd  ;  and  if  any  thing  can  be  prov- 
ed, we  think  it  has  been  proved,  that  the  death  threatened 
to  Adam  was  a  spiritual  death — condemnation  to  the  retri- 
bution of  future  punishment.     Sin,  as  sin,  is  uniformly   re- 
presented in  scripture,  as  exposing  the  sinner  to  a  future, 
spiritual  state  of  retribution.     Particular  sins,  sins  commit- 
ted under  peculiar  circumstances,  national  sins  and   sins  of 
social  or  political  bodies,  are  often  represented  as  chastised 
and  punished  in  this  present  state  by  physical  instrumentali- 
ty :   but  sin,  in  its  more  general  character,  as  moral  evil,  as 
disobedience,  charged  and  found  upon  man,  is  liable  to  pun- 
ishment in  a  future  spiritual  state.     It  is  a  fearful  thing,  for 
the  sinner,  to  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  living  God. 

To  sum  up  the  arguments  upon  this  threatened  punish- 
ment, it  appears  first,  That  the  punishment  threatened,  was 
hot  the  extinction  of  animal  life  merely,  for  in  the  day  of 
transgression  Adam  did  not  thus  suffer.  The  conclusion 
then  is,  that  death,  and  death  on  the  day  of  transgres- 
sion, must  have  been  inflicted  in  some  other  way,  for  the 
word  of  the  Lord  must  endure,  his  word  cannot  fail.  It  ap- 
pears in  the  second  place,  That  a  variety  of  scriptures  assert 
the  death  threatened  to  have  been  inflicted  immediately  on 
the  act  of  disobedience  ;  that  our  first  parent  died  legally 
and  morally,  *  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sin,'  under  the 
curse  of  a  broken  law,  in  the  arrest  of  justice,  and  liable  to 
God's  displeasure  in  the  world  to  come.  If  this  be  not  the 
view,  given  in  holy  writ,  of  this  case  of  transgression  and  pen- 
alty inflicted,  then  I  am  at  a  loss  what  sense  to  put  upon 


38  LECTURE  II. 

language  ;  and,  moreover,  how  to  account  for  Adam's  viola- 
tion of  the  divine  law  under  such  a  penalty,  and  he  to  live 
another  day,  is  still  more  difficult. 

EI  ere  then  is  the  institution  of  a  moral  government — the 
first  act  of  which,  is  declared  to  be  upon  the  principle  of 
retributive  justice.  With  this  principle  thus  established  we 
are  prepared  to  meet  Mr.  Balfour's  theory  in  denial  of  the 
doctrine.  Let  us  look  at  what  he  asserts,  and  at  what  he  in- 
sinuates on  this  article.     His  words  are  these  : 

(428)  fc>  The  doctrine  of  eternal  misery  supposes  that  God 
11  threatened  Adam,  that  in  the  day  he  ate  of  the  forbidden 
11  fruit  he  should  die,  and  that  death  threatened  is  said  to  be 
"  death  temporal,  spiritual  and  eternal.  This  eternal  death 
41  is  said  to  be  endless  misery  in  Hell.  Hell  torments,  then, 
44  was  (were)  threatened  before  sin  existed,  or  before  the 
44  promise  of  a  Saviour  was  given.  But  is  this  a  correct 
"  understanding  of  the  death  threatened  Adam  ?  The  false- 
"  hood  of  it  is  evident  from  one  fact,  that  Adam,  Noah,  Abra- 
44  ham,  and  all  the  Old  Testament  believers  did  not  so  un- 
derstand it.  If  they  had,  would  they  not  have  taught  it  to 
"mankind?  But  do  we  find  them  referring  to  Adam's  sin 
"as  involving  himself  or  his  posterity  in  endless  misery  in 
14  Hell?  Or  do  we  find  such  a  doctrine  taught  by  any  Old 
44  Testament  writer?  Let  all  the  threatenings  of  God  in  the 
41  Old  Testament  be  examined,  and  we  shall  find  them  in 
44  unison  with  the  first  threatening  to  Adam.  God  threat  - 
44  ened  to  destroy  the  world  by  a  flood  ;  Sodom  and  the 
44  cities  of  the  plain  by  fire  ;  but  is  a  hint  dropped  that  the 
44  wicked  in  such  cases  were  at  death  to  be  eternally  miser- 
44  able."  (30)  "  The  whole  race  of  mankind  is  swept  from  the 
14  earth  by  a  flood,  Noah  and  his  family  excepted  ;  but, 
44  does  this  good  man  deplore,  in  any  shape,  that  so  many 
44  precious  souls  went  to  Hell  ?  God  also  destroyed  the  ci- 
44  ties  of  the  plain  :  Abraham  intercedes  that  they  might  be 
44  spared,  but  uses  no  argument  with  God,  that  the  people 
41  must  go  to  Hell  to  suffer  eternal  misery.     Now  suffer  me 


LECTURE  II.  59 

f<  to  ask,  if  Abraham  believed  this  doctrine,  is  it  possible 
"  he  should  have  failed  to  urge  it  as  an  argument,  that  all 
41  these  wicked  persons  must  go  to  Hell,  if  God  destroyed 
"  them."  Thus  far  Mr.  B —  Let  us  see  to  what  all  this 
amounts.     And 

1st.  I  am  sorry  to  be  under  the  necessity  of  calling  upon 
Mr.  B —  to  correct  his  own  statement  and  phraseology.  He 
speaks  again  and  again  of  "  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery— 
eternal  punishment — everlasting"  and  so  on.      He  should 
have  said  in  these  passages,  future  misery — -future  punish- 
ment, and  so  in  all  others,  when  he  is  arguing  on  the  point 
in  question,  and  to  this  we  shall  hold  him,  because  he  lays 
the  whole  ground  of  his  "  Inquiry"  upon  the  doctrine  of fu- 
ture punishment,  not  eternal  punishment :  we  shall  there- 
fore now  and  always  substitute  future,  for  eternal.     It  is 
however  much  to  be  regretted  that  Mr.  B —  should  write 
so  loosely,  and  so  frequently  aside  the  acknowledged  point 
of  dispute.     This  matter  being  set  right,  goes  to  weaken 
Mr.  B — 's  argument  upon   Adam's  threatening.     Vv  e  do 
not  contend  that  God  did  threaten  Adam   with  "  endless 
misery  in  Hell  :*'  what  we  contend  for  is,  that  God  threat- 
ened Adam  with  death  as  the  just  retribution  of  disobedi- 
ence ;  this  punishment  we  have  seen,  and  all  must  see,  was 
not  inflicted  by  the  extinction  of  his  natural  life  on  the  day 
of  transgression,  for  he  lived  hundreds  of  vears  after  this 
act  of  disobedience  :  this  punishment  of  death  therefore  was 
not  a  present  so  much  as  a  future  punishment,  it  was  not  in 
his  natural  death,  so  much  as  in  his  spiritual  death.    He  ar- 
gues farther,  that  "  Hell  torments"  were  not  threatened  to 
Adam,  because,  "  Adam,  Noah,  Abraham  and  all  the  Old 
Testament  believers  did  not  so  understand  it,"  and  we  do 
not  contend  that  they  did.     But  Mr.  B —  strengthens  his 
argument  by  telling  us  what  was  the  nature  of  Adam's  pun- 
ishment, and  how  he  suffered.     For  us  this  is  a  happy  cir- 
cumstance, as  it  will  bring  the  point  at  issue  to  a  speedy 
conclusion ;  at  least,  it  will  do  so  if  we  can  admit  the  rea- 
5 


jo  LECTURE  II. 

son  of  our  author's  argument.     Let  us  see  :    He  speaks  iia 
this  same  paragraph  of  the  sufferings  of  the  Sodomites,  and 
of  "  all  the  threateniugs  of  God  in  the  Old  Testament;**  He 
speaks  too,  in  another  place,  as  we  have  quoted,   where  he 
is  pursuing  the  same  reasoning,  of  the  destruction  of  man- 
kind by  the  flood  :  all  which  cases  of  threatening,   he  says, 
are  "  in  unison  with  the  first  threatening  to  Adam.''     I  sup- 
pose Mr.  B —  means  by  this  unison  of  cases,  that  Adam's 
threatened  punishment  was  the  same  as  that  threatened  to 
Sodom  and  to  the  antediluvians,  or  that  the  visible  tokens 
of  divine  displeasure  in  each  were  the    same.     Now  how 
can  these  threatening^  be  in  unison  ?  God  threatened  the  old 
world  with  death  by  a  flood  of  waters,  and  the  Sodomites  by 
a  flood  of  fire,  and  the \  all  died  a  natural  deaih  as  God  threat- 
ened.     God  threatened  Adam  with  death  on  the  diy  of  his 
transgression  ;  he  transgressed,  but  did  not  on  that  day  die 
a  natural  death :  these  threatenings  are  therefore  not  in  uni- 
son, they  are  not  similar  but  very  different,  in  one  case  it  is 
natural    present   death — in   the    other  it    is    spiritual  and 
future  death.     Here  is  a  discordancy  in  our  Inquirer's  ar- 
gument, that  I  cannot  reconcile — it  must  be  left  to  him. 

2.  There  is  also,  to  me,  somewhat  of  an  unbecoming  bold- 
ness in  his  assertions,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  future  retribu- 
bution  was  never  declared  to  any  of  the  patriarchs,  neither 
was  it  ever  understood  or  believed  by  them,  nor  did  they 
ever  act  in  regard  to  it !  With  this  bold  challenge  before  us 
I  ask — For  what  were  the  sacrifices  offered  "?  in  these  was 
there  no  recognition  of  retribution  ?  no  sense  or  conscious- 
ness of  offence  ?  What  are  we  to  understand  of  Noah's  doc- 
trine as  a  preacher  of  righteousness?  in  preaching  righteous- 
ness could  he  avoid  the  doctrine  of  retributive  justice  *?  Is 
it  not  said  that  by  righteousness  he  condemned  the  world,  and 
became  heir  of  the  retribution  by  heaven's  favour  be  stowed  ? 
Now  how  is  ail  this  to  be  reconciled  with  Mr  B — 's  asser- 
tion that  the  patriarchs  knew  nothing  of  retributive  justice  ? 
Surely  Mr.  B—  does  not  mean  to  prove  that  the  patriarchs 


LECTURE  II.  *i 

knew  nothing  of  retributive  justice,  because  they  were 
not  threatened  with  "  Hell  torments, "  or  because  Sheoldoes 
not  mean  a  place  of  misery.  U  Mr.  B —  can  see  his  way 
clear  along  this  course  it  is  more  than  I  can — to  me  it  pre- 
sents nothing  but  perplexity  and  discordancy. 

But  farther,  Mr.  B —  tells  us,  that  Noah  with  all  his 
preaching  never  declared  the  doctrine  of  retribution  to  any 
man,  that  he  never  lamented  the  lost  condition  of  those  who 
were  drowned  in  the  flood.  In  our  turn,  we  ask,  how  Mr. 
B —  arrives  at  this  knowledge  ?  How  does  he  know  that 
Noah  did  not  preach  retribution  ?  or  lament  the  condition 
of  his  overwhelmed  cotemporaries  ?  Is  any  thing  said  by 
Moses  in  his  story  of  Noah  and  the  deluge,  of  what  Noah 
did,  or  did  not  say,  or  how  he  did  feel,  or  did  not  feel?  I 
believe  all  is  a  blank  in  the  Mosaic  history,  not  one  word  of 
Noah's  preaching  or  meditation  on  the  subject,  but  our  au- 
thor knows  he  did  not  preach  retribution.  St.  Peter  says, 
that  Noah  wras  a  preacher  of  righteousness,  but  Mr.  B — 
knows  that  Noah  never  preached  or  threatened  retribution. 
Peter  says  again,  that  after  the  *  long  suffering  of  God'  and 
the  righteous  preaching  of  Noah,  God  '  brought  in  the  flood 
upon  the  world  of  the  ungodly' — and  so  in  regard  to  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah,  4  condemned  them  with  an  overthrow,  mak- 
ing them  an  ensample  unto  those  that  after  should  live  un- 
godly,' and  yet  Mr.  B —  is  pretty  certain  that  there  was  no 
retribution  in  this  threatening  and  punishment,  no  liability 
to  future  displeasure.  To  keep  more  particularly  to  Noah's 
mission — Noah  was  a  preacher  of  righteousness,  but  Mr.  B — 
knows  that  Noah  did  not  believe  in  a  future  retribution,  and 
therefore  that  he  did  not  preach  it.  But  does  not  every  one 
see  that  our  friend  Balfour  is  only  proving  negatives,  and  the 
whole  of  his  theory  so  far  stands  upon  negatives  and  upon 
nothing  else.  We  have  seen  in  the  Mosaic  history  that  no- 
thing is  said  upon  what  Noah  did  preach  to  the  antediluvi- 
ans, not  a  word  positively  of  any  thing  he  said  or  taught. 
He  said  nothing  about  a  future  state  of  happiness,  nothing 


32  LECTURE  IX. 

about  the  state  and  residence  of  the  blessed  God,  of  course, 
not  a  word  about  any  state  of  future  existence  either  in  heaven 
above  or  in  the  abyss  beneath.      Upon  our  Inquirer's  mode 
of  reasoning,  we  may  conclude  that  Noah  knew  nothing  of 
any  future  state  of  blessedness,  or  of  the  spiritual  existence 
of  the  blessed  God  :  indeed,  we  might  conclude  that  there 
is  no  state  of  future  blessedness,  for  such  an  interesting  par- 
ticular, Noah,  so  authorised  as  he  was,  would  not  have  fail- 
ed to  preach,  had  there  been  such  a    state  of  blessedness  ; 
but  as  he  says  nothing  about  it,  we  conclude  at  once  that 
there  was  no  such  thing.     This  is  the  way  in  which  unbe- 
lievers reason  against  a  future  state  ;  the  reserve,  on  the  part 
of  the  Old  Testament  revelation  on  a  future  immortality  is 
urged  by  them  as  proof  that  the  Old  Testament  saints  knew 
nothing  about  a  future  state.      But  as  Noah  was  a  preacher 
of  righteousness,  he  did  preach  and  assert  something  posi- 
tively, and  that  positive  something  must  have  been  right- 
eousness, which  I  apprehend  was  in  declaring  a  perfect  rule, 
according  to  Divine  authority.     Upon  Mr.  B — 's    system, 
this  rule,  or  righteousness,  must  have  been  to  declare  to  the 
sinners  of  the  old  world  that  in  the  constitution  of  the  uni- 
verse there  was  no  retributive  justice— no  punishment  for 
sinners — so  far  from  any  such  thing,  that  all  the  whole  world, 
excepting  himself  and  family,  were  about  to  be  taken  from 
scenes  of  imperfection  and  inconvenience  and  sin,  to  abodes 
of  perfect  blessedness  and  glory.     This,  Lot  too,  upon  the 
same  principle,   would    preach   to   the    Sodomites, — But, 
brethren,  can  your  minds  be  brought  over  to  such  a  convic- 
tion ?  or  can  Mr.  B —  evade  the  conclusion  we  have  drawn  ? 
I  must  say,  however,  that  I  have  no  idea  that  Mr.  B —  will 
admit  these  conclusions.     I  believe  he  has  a  purer  mind, 
and  a  better  heart,  and  that  he  is  not  aware  of  the  scope  his 
theorising  takes,  nor  of  the  liberty,  men   of  corrupt  minds 
will  indulge  in  as  they  theorise  with  him. 

There  is  another  thing  of  which  our  author  seems  not  to 
be  aware.     Adam's  sin  consisted  in  one  simple  act  of  diso- 


LECTURE  II.  33 

bedience,  it  was  a  sin  purely  against  God,  it  was  the  only 
sin  he  could  commit,  there  was  but  one  command,  and  this 
command  was  a  prohibition  :  *  Of  the  tree  of  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,  thou  shalt  not  eat  of  it.'  To  have  observed 
this  prohibition  would  have  consummated  the  virtue  of  his 
character,  and  have  secured  his  happiness.  The  threatened 
punishment  therefore  was  in  unison  with  such  a  crime  :  but 
the  sins  of  the  antediluvians  and  of  Sodom  were  by  no 
means  in  unison  with  Adam's  sin,  neither  could  their  pun- 
ishment be  in  unison.  Indeed  Mr.  B —  only  asserts  that 
these  threatenings  or  punishments  were  in  unison  ;  he  does 
not  attempt  to  show  in  what  way  they  agreed,  or  how  they 
were  similar  and  in  unison:  if  he  could  have  shown  how  these 
threatenings  resembled  one  another,  doubtless  he  would ; 
but  he  has  left  us  quite  in  the  dark  on  the  subject,  with  his 
bare  assertion.  Neither  does  Mr.  B —  make  any  distinction 
between  the  sin  of  an  individual,  and  the  sin  of  a  people,  a 
nation,  a  body  politic.  Punishment  may  be  inflicted  on  an 
individual  for  his  sins  in  a  future  state — on  a  people  or  a  na- 
tion it  cannot  be  so  inflicted  ;  the  punishment  must  be  in- 
flicted while  their  national  character  exists ;  in  a  future  state 
nations  or  bodies  politic  cannot  be  the  subjects  of  retribu- 
tion. But  of  this  we  shall  speak  more  distinctly  hereafter. 
It  now  remains  that  we  review  the  course  we  have  taken 
in  this  lecture,  and  in  the  controversy  so  far  as  we  have  pro- 
ceeded. And  1st.  It  appears  that  we  have  not  mistaken  the 
ground  of  the  "  Inquiry. "  For,  I  repeat  what  I  have  said 
before,  that  I  should  be  exceedingly  sorry  to  misapprehend 
Mr.  B —  in  any  part  of  his  treatise,  but  more  especially  in 
the  root  of  the  question  :  and  more  especially  still,  I  should 
be  averse  to  the  assumption  of  any  consequences  and  con- 
clusions he  would  deny.  But  yet  I  am  to  judge  of  Mr. 
B — 's  theory  by  what  he  has  actually  written,  not  by  what 
he  may  have  yet  to  offer,  either  in  explanation  of  what  he  has 
said,  or  in  addition  thereto.  The  ground  taken  by  our  au- 
thor is  this,  namely,   That  there  is  no  punishment  for  the 


*i  LECTURE  II* 

wicked  in  a  future  state.  Our  distinction  too  it  seems  h<vs 
been  correct,  that  in  opposing  what  he  denominates  end/ess 
punishment,  lie  contends  ugumsl  future  punishment.  This  is 
the  sense  in  which  he  is  understood  by  all  his  readers  with 
whom  I  have  conversed  :  he  is  so  understood  by  the 
"  Christian  Repository/'  a  journal  edited  upon  the  princi- 
ples t)f  Winchester  and  Murray,  the  principles  avowed  as  I 
understand  bv  two  societies  of  our  citv.  It  has  the  follow- 
ing  passage.  "  The  avowed  object  of  the  treatise  is,  to  sap 
the  foundation  of  endless  misery,  but  the  arguments  made 
use  of  weigh  equally  against  all  misery  in  a  future  state, 
whether  temporary  or  endless.  Mr.  B — 's  views,  there- 
fore, introduce  all  men  into  heaven  at  death,  though  they 
expire  in  the  very  act  of  murder.  I  have  (continues  the  Re- 
viewer) mentioned  this,  that  the  reader  may  not  be  deceived 
on  this  point.  For  in  the  "  Inquiry"  there  appears  a  studied 
silence  on  that  point,  although  the  arguments  are  levelled  at 
the  root  of  future,  as  well  as  endless  punishment." — Upon 
this  admitted  principle  then,  Mr.  B—  denies,  and  the  whole  of 
his  theory  goes  to  deny  the  doctrine  of  a  future  retribution. 
This  theory,  we  have  seen  in  our  first  lecture,  goes  at  once 
to  negative  eveiy  moral  principle  in  God  and  man  ;  its 
course  is  materialism  and  its  conclusion  atheism.  Such  a 
subject  Mr.  B—  says  himself  "  is  both  solemn  and  import- 
ent" — Yes,  brethren,  and  we  think  so  too.  It  is  of  some 
importance  to  us  to  know  whether  we,  as  men,  are  moral 
agents,  accountable  and  intellectual,  or  mere  mechanical 
systems  of  a  perishing  world.  It  is  of  importance  to  us  to 
know  whether  our  capacities  for  happiness  be  confined  to 
this,  or  whether  they  stretch  out  into  a  future  state.  It  is 
of  importance  to  us  to  know,  whether  we  are  the  creatures 
of  a  God  who  has,  or  has  not,  established  a  government 
over  us,  and  a  propriety  in  us,  or  whether  the  God  that  is 
said  to  have  made  us,  be  not  himself  made  of  the  same  mu- 
table materials  as  we  are  ourselves — these  important  inqui- 
ries  involve  many  others  equally  solemn  and  important ': 


LECTURE  It  ss 

hence  we  have  in  this  discourse  attempted  to  establish  the 
theory  of  divine  government,  upon  the  principle  of  future 
retribution  ;  we  have  sought  the  proofs  of  this  system  in 
the  Bible,  we  have  seen  there  that  such  a  government  is 
manifest  in  the  first  acts  of  the  Creator  and  Lawgiver. 
Upon  this  "  solemn"  principle  go  all  the  acts  of  that  Moral 
Governor  of  the  world,  and  to  this  authority  we  are  prepar- 
ed to  bow.  We  have  examined,  as  far  as  we  have  gone, 
Mr.  B — 's  arguments  in  defiance  of  this  doctrine,  and  we 
have  found  them  to  be  exceedingly  defective.  His  proofs 
are  mostly  negatives,  or  mere  assumptions.  The  Inquirer 
does  not  appear  to  be  distinctly  acquainted  with  the  precise 
subject  he  has  undertaken  to  discuss  :  hence  there  is  an  in- 
distinctness in  the  selection  of  his  arguments,  and  in  the 
conclusion  at  which  he  would  arrive^  He  does  not,  as  he 
goes  on,  seem  to  know  whether  he  is  to  disprove  the  doc- 
trine of  endless  or  future  punishment :  but  from  what  he 
has  admitted  in  the  statement  of  the  question  we  shall  hold 
him  to  one  point,  namely,  future  punishment. 

2.  It  appears  that  the  ground  assigned  us  in  this  contro- 
versv  is  the  most  tenable  and  safe,  and  affords  us  the  best 
opportunity  of  assailing  our  adversary  with  success.  I  am 
aware  that  some  of  the  zealous  and  the  sound  would  urge, 
that  we  prove  first,  the  eternity  of  future  punishment,  and 
then,  sav  thev,  4  All  is  done  at  once.'  But  I  confess  that  I 
am  a  little  fearful  of  attempting  to  prove  so  much  at  once ; 
indeed  it  is  quite  unnecessary  :  if  I  can  prove  a  future  retri- 
bution, Mr.  B —  and  all  who  stand  on  the  same  ground  are 
defeated,  and  the  truth  triumphs  ;  and  then  you  are  left  to 
form  your  own  judgment  on  the  extent  and  duration  of  fu- 
ture retribution.  And  then,  I  look  at  the  situation  of  Mr. 
B —  with  his  theory,  and  I  find  that  he  has  gone  upon  this 
bold  adventure  of  proving  more  than  is  necessary  :  he  has 
proved  too  much,  and  the  too  much  being  more  than  was 
needed,  has  exposed  him  to  an  attack  from  a  quarter  whence 
little  annoyance  might  have  been  expected  :  a  man  may  be 


36  LECTURE  II. 

encumbered  with  his  victories  and  his  conquests,  as  well  as 
be  weakened  with  his  wounds,  and  driven  by  the  force  of 
his  foe.  If  I  can  prove  retribution  in  a  future  state  from 
the  sacred  scriptures,  all  that  our  author  has  proved  from  the 
meaning,  or  non-meaning  of  Sheol,  Hades,  &c.  is  crumbled 
away ;  and  the  dust  of  the  wreck  given  to  the  driving 
winds  of  heaven.  One  thing  we  have  laid  before  you,  that 
is,  the  evidence  of  a  future  retribution,  as  constituting  the 
character  of  the  divine  government.  Mr.  B — 's  assertions, 
and  declarations,  and  evidence,  in  favour  of  a  contrary  sys- 
tem of  government  have  also  been  before  you  ;  it  remains 
then  for  you  to  choose  as  the  balance  of  reason  and  scrip- 
ture shall  in  your  judgment  decide.  We  have  offered  no 
authorities  but  those  that  are  sacred  ;  our  interpretations 
too  have  been  wholly  scriptural  ;  we  have  made  no  appeals 
to  commentators  or  to  critics  :  and  as  to  the  learning  neces- 
sary  in  this  discussion,  much  of  this  Mr.  B —  has  furnished 
alreadv  to  our  use,  which  will  save  us  a  s;reat  deal  of  trou- 
ble,  and  smooth  the  labour  to  our  hand ;  with  these  advan- 
tages before  us  we  remark 

3.  That  the  ground  taken  in  the  examination  of  this  "  In- 
quiry" is  that,  on  which  a  greater  number  of  thinking  and 
serious  men  can  meet,  than  can  be  expected  to  come  to- 
gether on  any  other  ground.  The  principle  is  in  the  first 
place  benevolent,  as  it  respects  our  author  himself.  Our 
object,  in  part,  and  that  principally,  is  to  show  our  friend 
wherein  we  think  he  has  erred,  and  wherein  he  has  misled 
others ;  should  we  not  succeed,  yet  every  good  man  will 
justify  and  commend  the  effort.  Now  to  accomplish  such 
an  object,  with  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Balfour,  we  must  adopt 
the  most  reasonable  and  the  most  serious  measures.  Would 
it  be  likely  to  avail  any  thing  were  we  to  turn  upon  him  all 
the  artillery  of  hard- worded  church  authorities,  or  threaten 
him  with  the  thunderbolts  of  heaven's  vengeance  ?  Such  an 
experiment  could  not  succeed,  and  ought  not  to  be  attempt- 
ed.    Mr.  B —  a  few  years  since  was  strictly  orthodox  ;  in- 


LECTURE  II.  Z7 

deed,  I  presume  his  creed  was,  in  all  its  parts,  much  sound- 
er than  the  orthodox  schemes  of  this  region  at  the  present 
day.  Thus  was  he  educated,  thus  he  matriculated  in  aca- 
demic studies,  and  thus  he  preached  in  our  pulpits.  His 
leaving  this  stand  and  approximating  the  ground  on  which 
he  now  appears,  was  not  by  wavering  to  and  fro,  backwards 
and  forwards,  but  by  a  regular  descent,  and  that,  he  tells  us, 
by  a  careful  perusal  of  the  holy  scriptures.  That  he  has 
read  the  scriptures  much  and  attentively,  nobody  will  doubt, 
who  has  glanced  at  his  "  Inquiry."  Mr.  B —  too  has  al- 
ways classed  with  pious  men,  and  in  preaching  what  he  has 
thought  to  be  the  truths  of  religion  he  has  manifested  much 
Christian  independence,  and  disinterestedness.  Under 
these  circumstances,  we  entreat  our  brother  to  review  the 
steps  he  has  taken  in  this  course,  and  again  read  over  that 
holy  volume  with  which  he  is  already  so  well  acquainted.  It 
is  our  intention,  while  we  urge  him  to  this  renewed  exer- 
cise, to  assist,  in  our  humble  measure,  in  comparing  scrip- 
ture with  scripture  ;  some  of  these  collateral  and  self-inter- 
preting passages  may  have  yet  escaped  his  inquisitous  mind. 
This  is  ground  on  which  Mr.  B —  and  your  preacher  have 
agreed  to  meet,  and  here  we  mean  to  stay  awhile.  Our  au- 
thor is  not  settled  in  this  system  ;  indeed  it  is  hardly  yet  a 
system  with  him,  he  is,  as  he  tells  us,  only  an  adventurer. 
He  says  himself,  (Introd.  V\\\.J  "  The  path  in  which  he 
"  trod,  in  this  Inquiry,  has  been  new  to  himself,  and  but 
"  little  frequented  by  other  writers."  This  is  candid  and 
honest,  and  we  wish  to  preserve  the  same  spirit. 

The  controversy,  conducted  upon  these  terms,  admits  the 
auxiliary  force  of  all  who  believe  in  a  future  retribution, 
whether  that  future  be  considered  as  limited  or  eternal,  and 
by  rejecting  the  phrase  eternal,  and  substituting  future,  all 
parties,  even  Mr.  B — ,  will  agree  in  the  course  taken  in  the 
discussion.  But  here  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  we  are 
making  no  compromise  with  Mr.  B — ,  offering  no  terms  of 
reconciliation,  while  he  holds  the  present  ground  with  no 
6 


*»  LECTURE  II. 

better  pretensions.  Mr.  B — ,  though  the  path  he  treads  is 
new  to  him,  is  very  candid  and  bold,  and  even  confident: 
he  is  sometimes  very  hard  upon  his  opponent,  and  is,  we 
think,  rather  too  indiscriminate  and  severe  upon  those  whom 
he  denominates  orthodox.  Considering  these  things,  Mr. 
B —  must  expect  some  replies  a  little  savouring  of  that 
confidence  on  our  part,  so  much  manifested  by  himself: 
and  while  we  would  avoid  every  thing  like  railing  and  in- 
vective, we  must  be  permitted  to  make  the  best  use  of  all 
our  advantages  against  the  adversary.  We  do  think,  and 
we  wish  it  to  be  so  understood,  that  the  u  Inquiry"  is  a 
book  of  dangerous  tendency — that  it  goes  to  sap  the  foun- 
dation of  all  moral  government,  human  and  dnine — it  is  a 
book  in  its  nature  and  progress  as  much  to  be  deprecated 
by  Universalists,  of  the  restoration  class,  as  by  the  more  re- 
puted orthodox.  If  Mr.  B — 's  "  Inquiry"  is  to  be  answer- 
ed, every  man,  who  believes  in  a  retributive  justice,  is  bound 
to  embark  all  his  best  moral  powers  and  means  in  counter- 
acting its  progress,  influence  and  tendency.  Our  next  sub- 
ject will  be 

Retribution  threatened  to  the  -wicked,  a  motive  to  hofaiess. 
Brethren  prepare  your  minds  for  this  anticipated  subject  by 
a  serious  perusal  of  the  sacred  scriptures,  and  by  devout 
supplication,  by  chastising  your  passions,  and  by  avoiding 
all  appearance  of  evil.  '  And,  besides  this,  giving  all  dili- 
gence, add  to  your  faith,  virtue  ;  and  to  virtue,  know'edge  ; 
and  to  knowledge,  temperance ;  and  to  temperance,  pa- 
tience ;  and  to  patience,  godliness ;  and  to  godliness, 
brotherly-kindness ;  and  to  brotherly-kindness,  charity. 
For  if  these  things  be  in  you  and  abound,  they  make  you, 
that  ye  shall  neither  be  barren,  nor  unfruitful  in  the 
knowledge  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.' 


Retribution  threatened  to  the  Wicked,  a  Motive  to  Virtue. 


KNOWING    THEREFORE    THE    TERROR    OF    THE    LORD,   WE    PERSUADE 

men. — 2  Corinthians,  v.   n. 

That  system  of  government  which  is  established  over 
the  creatures  of  our  world,  must  necessarily  be  good,  and 
the  best  adapted  to  man  in  all  the  circumstances  and  condi- 
tions in  which  he  may  be  placed.  Our  decisions  in  this  case 
arc  founded  upon  the  view  the  Divine  Being  has  given  of 
his  own  perfections,  as  displayed  in  all  his  works.  —  And 
then  there  is  another  source  of  evidence  in  favour  of  this 
position.  All  the  governments,  with  which  we  have  been 
acquainted,  ancient  and  modern,  exhibit  in  their  master 
strokes  a  near  resemblance  to  the  divine  government :  the 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God — these  are  the  lower 
courts,  of  which  heaven's  is  the  supreme.  In  all  these  sys- 
tems of  jurisprudence,  above  and  beneath,  there  is  not  one 
but  what  recognizes  the  principle  of  retributive  justice— 'a 
terror  to  the  evil  doer  and  a  praise  and  defence  to  such  as 
do  well.' — Courts  of  a  more  moral  complexion,  courts  of 
conscience  or  sessions  of  authority  in  the  church,  bind  their 
members  by  the  most  solemn  sanctions,  and  inflict  penalties 
upon  the  transgressors  according  to  the  rule  of  a  righteous 
retribution.  There  is  another  solemn  tribunal,  before  which 
I  know  some  of  you  have  prostrated,  invoking  the  most 
dread  retribution,  should  you  in  any  wise  forego  your  most 
sacred  obligation. — Yes,  brothers  and  fellows,  in  the  high 
hall  of  free  and  accepted  craftsmen,  there,  nothing  is  done 
but  by  rule,  and  by  square  ;  and  woe  to  the  unfaithful ;  he 
is  cast  out  to  the  most  awful  retribution,  to  be  known 
amongst  us  no  more  forever.     In  all  these  views  of  govern- 


40  LECTURE  III. 

ment  a  threatening  retribution  is  held  out  as  a  motive  to 
virtue.      Nor  do  I  reeollect  to  have  met  with  any  system 
proposed  upon  a  contrary  principle,  till  we  come  to  that  un- 
happy time  when  the  French  philosophers,  with  Godwin, 
and  some  others,  announced  a  4  political  justice'  without 
law,  without  sanction,  without  penalty,  without  retribution. 
In  their  hall  of  jurisprudence,  it  is  true,  they  exhibited  the 
figure  of  justice,  but  the  sword  and  the  balance  were  pluck- 
ed from  her  hands  :    on  the  tribunal  lay  the  volume  of  the 
law,  but  the  all-important  page,  containing  this  threat  to  the 
wicked,  4  The  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall  die,'  was  entirely 
blotted  out. — Well,  and  what  was  the  progress  and  the  con- 
summation of  this,  to  some,  imposing  code  of  national  poli- 
cy ?  Alas !  these  scenes  are  too  gloomy  and  too  horrific  to 
be  presented  in  this  place  :  but  the  adventurers  in  this  new 
theory  of  government  soon  fell  in  the  ruins  of  their  own 
project,  like  the  Jews  in  the  valley  of  Hinnom  ;  their  car- 
casses by  thousands  have  lain  unburied  in  the  streets  of  their 
cities,  till  they  became  '  an  abhorring  unto  all  flesh'  and  by 
hundreds  of  thousands  have  they  rotted  like  dung  on  the 
earth   in   the  fields  of  hostile  Germany  :    how  many  have 
been  frozen  by  the  winter  frost,  and  scorched  by  the  sum- 
mer sun  of  a  Russian  sky  ;   or  how  many  to  this  day  lie  half 
buried  on  the  plains  of  Waterloo,  no  tongue  can  tell.    Such 
was  the  career  of  this  new  philosophy,   which  promised 
liberty  and  universal   well  being  to  all   mankind,  till  the 
remnant   of  the   French  nation  were  compelled   to  throw 
themselves  back  again  into  the  arms  of  despotic  power,  for 
relief  from  the  horrors  of  this  philosophic  dream.    This  was 
the  fate  of  a  scheme  that  hazarded  a  government  for  man- 
kind, without  the  balance  of  a  just  and   righteous  retribu- 
tion :  and  such  must  be  the  fate  of  every  adventure  that  goes 
upon  a  similar  principle.       Hence  we  object  to  Mr.  B — 's 
theory.     This  particular  point  was  considered  in  our  former 
lecture  :  but  the  "  Inquiry"  not  only  sets  aside  the  principle 
of  retributive  justice,  but  argues  against  it,  upon  the  bad.. 


LECTURE  III.  *i 

ness  of  its  tendency.  Mr.  B —  thinks  that  there  is  no  vir- 
tue  in  obeying  a  law  under  a  sense  of  penalty  annexed  to 
disobedience  :  the  obedience  he  contends  for  mnst  be  all 
gratuitous,  a  disinterested  benevolence,  a  virtue  of  intuition. 

O  7 

a  virtue  performed  from  inclination,  from  the  overflowing 
goodness  of  the  heart,  without  any  consideration  of  motives 
or  consequences.  Such  a  virtue  I  know  has  been  dreamed 
of  by  speculators  in  a  new  divinity  ;  they  have  gone  so  far  as 
tosuppose,and  even  to  contend,  that  a  man  may  have  so  much 
disinterested  benevolence,  as  to  be  willing  to  be  damned  for 
the  glory  of  God.  How  such  idle  speculations  have  found 
their  way  into  the  heads  of  wise  and  learned  men  is  aston- 
ishing ;  and  more  astonishing  still,  that  Mr.  B — ,  with  his 
experience  and  opportunity  to  observe  the  tendency  of  such 
janglings,  should  contend  for  the  very  same  principle  him- 
self. It  is  true,  that  these  new  divinity  men  have  carried 
their  system  farther  than  our  Inquirer,  and  have  been  more 
inconsistent  in  the  management  of  their  theory ;  for  while 
they  have  demanded  a  disinterested  benevolence  in  their 
obedience,  they  have  taught  in  terms  of  so  much  terror,  as 
if  all  obedience  was  to  be  produced  by  fear  of  punishment. 
Mr.  B —  has  not  been  thus  inconsistent — all  representation 
of  future  retribution,  all  motives  of  fear  are,  from  his  system 
of  teaching,  expunged.  •  To  both  these  systems  we  object ; 
but  as  we  have  to  do  only  with  that  of  the  "  Inquiry"  it  will 
be  our  duty  to  examine  the  theory  peculiar  to  it.  In  this 
system  there  is  no  retribution,  of  course  there  can  be  no 
propriety  in  urging  obedience  upon  such  a  principle :  the 
promises  and  the  threatenings  are  equally  irrelevant.  But 
then  this  system  is  not  in  accordance  with  scripture ;  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  apostles  taught  and  preached  systematically 
upon  a  contrary  principle  ;  they  urged  a  departure  from  all 
iniquity,  and  a  holy  conversation  upon  a  principle  of  retri- 
bution, upon  the  promised  mercy  of  God,  and  upon  the 
threatened  displeasure  of  God.  As  it  respects  the  apostles, 
our  text  is  a  specimen,  and  the  methods  of  Jesus  Christ 


42  LECTURE  III. 

himself,  and  the  prophets  who  bore  witness  to  him,  shall  be 
laid  before  you.  This  is  the  subject  we  are  going  to  estab- 
lish in  opposition  to  the  "  Inquiry. " 

Knowing  therefore  the  terror  of  the  Lord  we  persuade 
men.  Whether  this  was  preaching  4  hell  fire  or  wrath  to 
come,'  it  was  preaching  terror  ;  and  it  was  urged  as  a  mo- 
tive to  a  holy  life  ;  by  it  our  apostle  persuaded  men,  and  we 
intend  to  imitate  his  example.  But  we  must  first  cite  our 
Inquirer's  view  on  this  article.  His  sentiments  are  these, 
and  thus  expressed. 

(337)  "  Under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  it  is  al- 
"  lowed,  that  the  doctrine  of  Hell  torments  (future  punish- 
"  ment)  was  not  known — Did  Adam  preach  the  doctrine  to 
"  Cain  to  make  him  holy?  Did  Noah  preach  this  doctrine 
"  to  make  the  antediluvians  holy?  Did  Lot  preach  this  doc- 
"  trine  to  make  the  Sodomites  holy  ?  Did  Abraham  even 
"  allude  to  this  in  his  intercession  with  God— vea  was  the 
"belief  of  this  doctrine  the  cause  of  the  holiness  of  Adam, 
u  Noah,  Abraham,  Lot,  &.c.  &c.  ?  Did  the  belief  of  (future 
"  punishment)  make  them  holy  in  distinction  from  those 
H  who  were  unholy  ?  (338)  Noah  was  a  preacher,  and  a 
"  preacher  of  righteousness,  but  I  do  not  find  a  single  hint 

given  in  his  history,  that  he  was  a  preacher  of  Hell  torments 

(future  punishment)  to  deter  men  from  their  licentious 
"  courses — If  the  doctrine  is  so  well  calculated  to  prevent 
41  sin,  and  promote  holiness,  why  did  not  our  Lord  teach  it 
"  to  the  Jews,  who  are  allowed  to  have  been  a  race  of  very 
u  wicked  men  ? — (339)  It  is  an  indisputable  fact,  that  the 
"  apostles  of  our  Lord  never  said  a  word  about  Hell  (future 
"  punishment)  to  the  Gentiles.  We  ask  then  what  they 
11  had  left  to  deter  men  from  the  commission  of  every 
"crime?  If  they  (the  apostles)  knew  the  doctrine  to  be 
"such  an  excellent  antidote  against  licentiousness,  why  did 
"  they  never  make  use  of  it.  They  must  have  either  been 
"  ignorant  of  such  a  doctrine,  or  very  culpable  in  not 
"  preaching  it,  to  deter  men  from  crime  ;    or  they  did  not 


u 


LKCTURH  III.  4* 

**  consider  it  so  efficacious  as  some  imagine.  And  it  ap- 
u  pears  that  they  (the  Gentiles)  were  believers  in  the  doc- 
14  trine  of  eternal  misery  in  Hades  or  Tartarus.  But  we 
"  see  that  the  belief  of  this  doctrine  did  not  turn  them  from 
V  their  licentious  courses.  This  was  not  its  effect  on  them. 
'*  Nor  did  the  apostles  of  our  Lord  think  the  preaching  of 
c*  misery,  either  in  Hades  or  Gehenna,  would  effect  this, 
"  for  they  do  not  say  one  word  to  them  about  punishment 
"  in  either  of  these  places.  Let  the  objector  then  account 
"  for  it,  if  the  apostles  were  of  his  mind  about  this,  why 
"  they  did  not  preach  this  doctrine  (namely  that  of  future 
11  punishment)  to  prevent  wickedness  in  their  day.  And  let 
"  him  account  for  it,  why  the  Gentiles  in  believing  it,  should 
"  be  so  licentious." 

On  these  passages  we  might  remark  as  heretofore,  the 
want  of  precision  in  expression  and  idea,  the  departure  from 
the  simple  article  of  the  primary  question,  future  punish- 
ment, not  eternal,  and  Hell  apart  from  the  simple  "fact  or 
falsehood"  that  there  is,  or  is  not,  future  punishment.  And 
again,  the  Inquirer  has  confounded  the  tendency  of  preach- 
ing future  punishment,  with  not  preaching  it,  or  he  has  con- 
founded the  tendency  of  believing  it,  with  the  tendency  of 
not  believing  it.  The  Jews,  he  says,  did  not  know,  nor  be- 
lieve that  there  was  any  future  punishment  for  the  wicked, 
and  yet  they  were  very  wicked. — The  Gentiles  were  taught, 
in  their  theologies,  that  there  was  a  future  punishment,  and 
they  believed  it ;  but  they,  he  says,  were  very  wicked  too  : 
he  does  not  tell  us  which  were  the  worst.  But  I  cannot  see 
what  he  intends  by  this  balance  of  tendencies,  whether  he 
considers  the  Jews  the  better  for  not  believing  the  doctrine, 
or  the  Gentiles  the  worse  Yor  believing  it.  I  really  cannot 
tell  what  he  means.  However,  one  thing  is  clear,  Mr.  B — 
asserts  that  the  doctrine  of  retribution,  or  future  punish- 
ment, was  not  an  evangelical  or  an  apostolic  doctrine  ;  nor 
has  such  teaching  a  tendency  to  promote  virtue.  Now,  we 
are  prepared  to  prove,  in  reply,  that  this  doctrine  was  both 


*l  LECTURE  III. 

evangelical  and  apostolical — yea,  farther,  that  it  was  a  doc- 
trine belkved  and  of  good  credit  in  Old  Testament  times, 
as  well  as  New.  We  are  prepared  to  show,  that  punishment 
or  misery  was  threatened  with  a  view  to  inspire  fear,  and  to 
stir  them  up,  so  as  to  make  them  flee  from  the  wrath  to 
come.  Thus  it  was  with  Noah.  God  threatened  all  flesh 
with  the  deluge,  but  to  all  he  gave  a  space  for  repentance ; 
yet  the  threatening  and  the  respite  they  all  despised,  except 
Noah,  with  whom  God  entered  into  covenant,  and  Noah 
4  moved  with  fear,  prepared  an  ark  to  the  saving  of  his 
house.'  Noah,  you  see,  knowing  the  terror  of  the  Lord, 
was  persuaded  to  prepare  the  ark.  Yet  Mr.  B — says,  (337) 
that  there  was  nothing  in  the  constitution  of  Noah's  virtue 
that  sprang  from  the  fear  of  a  threatened  retribution.  We 
could  multiply  instances,  almost  without  end,  to  this 
point,  but  your  time  would  be  rather  trifled  with  than  im- 
proved. The  next  case  I  shall  adduce  is  still  more  to  the 
point,  as  it  meets  our  Inquirer's  challenge,  not  only  in  all 
its  parts,  but  in  the  very  expression  and  letter,  namely,  the 
preaching  of  Hell  torments,  a  motive  to  virtue,  and  the 
preacher  is  Jesus  ;  he  threatens  with  Gehenna  torments  to 
reduce  to  obedience.  In  Luke's  Gospel,  (chap.  xii.  45.) 
Jesus  thus  addresses  his  disciples  on  the  snares  and  tempta- 
tions to  which  they  were  exposed  in  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try ;  *  And  I  say  unto  you,  my  friends,  Be  not  afraid  of 
them  that  kill  the  body,  and  after  that,  have  no  more  that 
they  can  do  :  but  I  will  forewarn  you  whom  ye  shall  fear  ; 
Fear  him,  which  after  he  hath  killed,  hath  power  to  cast  in- 
to Hell  ;  yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  Him.9  In  the  Evange- 
list Matthew  (x.  28.)  this  same  passage  in  the  Saviour's 
doctrine  is  thus  recited.  ■  And  fear  not  them  which  kill 
the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear 
him  which  is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  Hell.' 
Upon  this  text  our  Inquirer  labours  exceedingly  hard,  even 
to  distress,  to  which  we  shall  speak  in  a  future  lecture.  All 
we  demand  of  the  passage  now,  is,  that  a  threatened  retribu- 


LECTURE  III.  45 

tion,  either  figuratively  or  literally  in  Gehenna  too,  both  soul 
and  body,  urged  as  a  motive  to  the  fear  of  God.  Without 
sa\  ing  any  thing  more  now  about  the  nature,  or  extent  of 
the  punishment  threatened  in  this  section  of  scripture,  I  ap- 
peal to  the  most  common  understanding,  to  the  understand- 
ing of  a  child,  whether  punishment  in  Gehenna,  be  not  by 
our  Saviour  urged  as  a  motive  to  virtue  ?  If  this  be  admit- 
ted, and  it  cannot  be  evaded,  then  our  doctrine  is  establish- 
ed, and  we  may  proceed  to  illustrate  the  position  for  practi- 
cal use. 

And  here,  first,  let  us  come  to  some  point  on  the  charac- 
ter of  that  doctrine  and  preaching,  so  often  by  our  Inquirer 
called  the  doctrine  of  Hell  torments*  This  method  of  denom- 
inating and  describing  our  preaching,  I  mean  that  of  those 
who  assert  an  eternal  retribution,  has  in  it  something  to  be 
admitted,  and  something  to  be  rejected.  There  is,  in  this 
description,  a  part  we  shall  admit.  A  great  deal  has  been 
written  in  retirement,  and  much  more  has  been  proclaimed 
in  the  pulpit,  on  the  subject  of  future  punishment,  than  can 
be  justified  upon  the  grounds  of  scripture  and  reason.  Ma- 
ny passages  of*  holy  writ  have  been  selected  as  descriptive 
of  future  misery,  while  perhaps  they  have  no  allusion  what- 
ever to  a  future  state.  Others,  highly  figurative,  have  been 
selected,  and  the  preacher  has  insisted  upon  the  most  literal 
fulfilment  of  them,  his  genius  too,  formed  for  the  love  of  me- 
taphor, his  passions  burning  with  his  subject,  and  his  judg- 
ment a  long  way  behind,  has  made  an  awful  display  of  the 
terrific.  But  what  has  such  a  disclosure  effected?  Why 
it  has  perhaps  irritated  and  shocked  some  of  the  best  people 
in  his  audience — it  has  gained  the  applause  of  some  of  the 
weakest,  and  may  have  established  the  preacher's  character 
for  faithfulness,  but  as  to  the  wicked,  not  one  of  them  has 
been  (  persuaded1  to  forsake  his  evil  way,  and  turn  unto 
God  ;  so  far  from  it,  their  understandings  have  been  out- 
raged, and  their  best,  not  their  worst,  passions  disgusted, 
and  so  they  have  resolved  to  sin  on,  being  hardened  in  their 

7 


4rt  LECTURE  III. 

iniquities,  instead  of  being  alarmed, and  softened,  and  subdu- 
ed. This  is  the  kind  of  preaching  that  has  furnished  Mr.B — 
With  arguments  against  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution; 
and  though  we  cannot  follow  him  with  his  conclusion,  we 
will  stand  with  him  and  protest  against  such  gospel  preach- 
ing — here  we  set  up  our  remonstrance,   a  feeble  one,  it  is 
true,  but  decided,   and  declare  against  such  a  method  of 
calling  sinners  to  repentance — we  declare  against  it  in  terms 
of  reprobation,  let  it  come  from  whatever  quarter  it  may,  from 
the  learned  or  the  rude,  from  the  college  or  the  camp.     Not- 
withstanding, we  are  under  a  persuasion  that  the  "  Inquiry" 
has  made  too  much  of  this  alleged  case  :    there  is  bv  no 
means  such  a  method  of  preaching  to  the  extent  Mr.   B — 
imagines.     And    then  there  are  not  wanting,  people  of  a 
sceptical  and  dissolute  habit,  to  raise  prejudices  and  to  cir- 
culate uncandid  reports  in  regard  to  a  doctrine   which  re- 
proves, and  condemns,  their  ungodliness  and  vice. 

We  contend  for  that  ministry  which  sets  the  retributions 
of  a  future  state  in  the  strongest  point  of  light :  such  a  min- 
istry  was  that  of  the   apostles,   particulaily   of  St.    Paul: 
*  Knowing  the  terror  of  the  Lord,  he  persuaded  men,'  and 
how  ?  why,  by  setting  before  them  the    terrors  of  retribu- 
tive justice  ;  and  to  render  this  retribution  the  more  to  be 
dreaded,  he  places  the  despised  and  neglected  Jesus,  once 
a  Saviour,  upon  the  tribunal,     (vers-    10.^     4  We  must 
all  appear  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ;    that  every- 
one may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body,  according  to 
that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad.'     In  another 
place,  he  says  :   (Rom.  ii.  5,  6.  J  '  In  the  day  of  wrath,  and 
revelation  of  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  God  will  render 
to  every  man  according  to  his  deeds.'     And  Again  ;  (Gal. 
vi.  7,  8  J  «  Be  not  deceived,  God  is  not  mocked,  for  what- 
soever a  man  soweth  that  shall  he  reap  ;  for  he  that  soweth 
to  his  flesh,  shall   of  the   flesh  reap  corruption.'     Such  a 
preacher  was  the  Lord  Jesus — He  says,  The  wicked  shall 
be  raised  to  the  resurrection  of  damnation — the  wicked  shall 


LECTURE  III.  47 

go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  that  is,  on  the  lowest 
estimation,    into  punishment  in   a  future  state.      Such  was 
the   preaching  of  the   prophets. — Isaiah  said,    '  Woe  unto 
the  wicked,  it  shall  be  ill  with  him  :  for  the  reward  of  his 
hands  shall  be  given  him.'    Enoch,  the  seventh  from  Adam, 
prophesied  of  these  things — Noah  preached    righteousness, 
and  warned  of  these  things  ;  and  were  not  all  these  prophe- 
svings  and  preachings  a  declaration  of  the  doctrine  of  future 
retribution,  and  was  not  all  this  to  warn  and  to  persuade 
men  ?  In  all  these  discourses  and  alarms  I  do  not  see  a 
word  about  Hell  in  any  form,   neither  Sheol,  Hades,  Tar- 
tarus nor  Gehenna,  but  the  wicked  are  told  in  plain  terms — 
terms  plainer  than  Hell  can  express,  that  they  '  Shall  in  no 
case  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.— That  there  shall  in 
no  wise  enter  into  it,  any  thing  that  defileth,   neither  what- 
soever worketh  abomination  or  maketh  a  lie.' 
;    Having  divested  our  subject  of  that  strong  metaphorical 
language,  with  which  it  has  been  too  often  enforced,  let  us 
proceed  to  reason  and  moralize,  in  the  more  common  tone 
of  scripture  persuasion.     And  hence  we  observe,  That  sin 
is  a  great  evil,  and  God  views  it  with  displeasure.     Sin  is 
exceeding  sinful — it  has  in  its  very  nature  and  constitution 
an  excess  of  that  which  is  the  most  evil — it  is  the  superflui- 
ty of  naughtiness-— the  overflowings  of  maliciousness.    Yet 
to  simplify  ;    sin  is  disorder ;    it  is  a  removing  of  things 
from  the  place  in  which  the  Creator  put  them  ;  it  is  a  de- 
rangement of  things  :  by  it  the  order  God  first  established  is 
reversed, and  the  continuance  and  progressof  sin  arc  manifest 
in  the  preference  men  show  to  this  reversed  order  of  affairs  ; 
they  love  to  have  it  so :    the  gospel  proposes  a  return  of 
things  to  the  state  and  order  first  appointed  ;  the  gospel  pro- 
ceeds upon  this  principle,   and  adopts  means  whereby  the 
world  may  be  restored  to  its  proper  standing ;  but  this  is 
what  depraved  men  call  'Turning  the  world  upside  down.' 
And  indeed  the  doctrines  preached  by  the  apostles  of  Christ; 
were  calculated,  just  as  far  as  they  were  received,  to  over- 


4S  LECTURE  111. 

turn  every  system  then  in  operation.  All  the  polytheism, 
superstition,  priest-craft  and  false  morality  of  the  Gentiles, 
with  all  the  traditionary  religion,  hypocrisy  and  infidelity  of 
the  Jews,  were  threatened  by  the  gospel  with  a  total  over- 
throw :  and  as  far  as  that  same  gospel  has  succeeded  in  the 
world  to  the  present  day,  that  world  has  been  turning  up- 
side down,  to  the  annoyance  of  all  worldly  minded  men. 
This  is  the  simple  character  of  sin,  not  so  much  a  thing  it- 
self, or  a  system  of  things,  as  a  derangement  of  things.  And 
thus  sin  will  apply  to  all  cases  of  moral  evil  as  they  occur 
in  human  affairs.  This  then,  in  all  its  varieties  of  appear- 
ance and  effect,  is  what  excites  God's  displeasure.  And  here 
let  us,  for  a  few  moments,  confine  our  attention  to  this  dis- 
tinct view  of  sin,  as  that  which  is  displeasing  to  God,  the 
Moral  Go\erner  of  the  world.  God's  view  of  sin  is  to  be 
considered  as  distinct  from  all  those  circumstances  either  of 
aggravation  or  palliation  aribing  from  man's  view  of  it.  Man 
estimates  sin,  as  more  or  less  sinful,  from  its  being  more  or 
less  injurious  to  him  ;  so  that  some  sins  which  are  exceed- 
ingly offensive  to  God,  who  is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold 
iniquity,  are  hardly  noticed  by  man,  his  interest  not  being 
affected  by  them  ;  and  so  some  sins,  mere  sins  of  infirmity, 
in  the  sight  of  God,  who  knoweth  our  frames  and  remem- 
bereth  that  we  are  dust,  are  nevertheless  a  great  eye-sore  to 
a  man  whose  interest  is  crossed  and  prejudiced  thereby.  It 
is  so  between  man  and  man  ;  what  is  very  offensive  to  one 
will  be  unnoticed  by  another,  merely  because  their  several 
interests  lie  in  opposition  to  each  other.  God  looks  at  sin 
through  none  of  these  mediums,  he  looks  at  it  in  a  direct 
line,  and  right  down  upon  its  naked  qualities  ;  he  identifies 
it  as  an  act  of  disobedience,  a  disorder,  by  which  the  agent 
declares  his  preference  of  the  thing  prohibited  to  the  thing 
commanded.  Sin  thus  apprehended  by  a  pure  and  holy 
God,  is  marked  with  the  token  of  his  disapprobation,  and 
that  mark  remains  upon  it.  The  sinner's  impenitence,  and 
continuance  in  sinful  mindedness,  and  sinful  practice,  in- 


LECTURE  III.  49 

creases  his  guilt,  and  his  exposedness  to  God's  displeasure. 
God  changes  not ;  he  is  of  one  mind  ;  that  which  he  has 
marked  as  sin  remains  to  be  sin,  and  his  displeasure  is  a  set- 
tled principle,  so  that  the  sinner  is  marked  and  noted  for 
punishment ;  which  leads  us  to  observe 

Again,  That  God  takes  cognizance  of  sin,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  giving  judgment  upon  it.      Nothing  is  more 
clearly  laid  down  in  scripture  than  this,  (Eccles.  xii.  14,  & 
xi.  9.  J  l  God  will  bring  every  work  into  judgment,  with 
every  secret  thing,  whether  it  be  good,  or  whether  it  be  evil. 
Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth ;    and  let  thy  heart 
cheer  thee  in  the  days  of  thy  youth,  and  walk  in  the  ways 
of  thine  heart  and  in  the   sight  of  thine  eyes  :    But  know 
thou,  that  for  all  these  things  God  will  bring  thee  into  judg- 
ment. '     The  Bible  is  full  of  this  ;    read  Malachi,  (iii.   5.) 
1  And  I  will  come  near  to    you    to   judgment,  saith  the 
Lord,  and  I  will  be  a  swift  witness  against  the  sorcerers, 
and  against  the  adulterers,  and  against  false   swearers,  and 
against  those  that  oppress  the  hireling  in  his  wages,  the  wid- 
ow and  the  fatherless  and  that  turn  aside  the  stranger  from 
his  right,  and  fear  not  me  saith  the  Lord.'     Our  Saviour  is 
perpetually  turning  the  attention  of  his  hearers  to  this  tribu- 
nal :   '  I  say  unto  you,   That  every  idle  word  which  men 
shall  speak,  they  shall  give  account  thereof  in  the  day  of 
judgment.'     And  again,   *  The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  rise 
up  in  the  judgment  with  this  generation  and  condemn  it — 
The  queen  of  the  south  shall  rise  up  in  the  judgment  with 
this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it.'      All  the  apostles, 
whose  sayings  and  writings  are  preserved,  refer  to  this  judg- 
ment, in  a  great  variety  of  language  and  doctrine — Paul, 
*  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ ;'  Peter,   *  The  day  of  judg- 
ment, and  perdition  of  ungodly  men.'     John  saw  in  vision 
1  The  dead,  small  and  great,   stand  before  God ;    and  the 
books  were  opened — and  they  were  judged  every  man  ac- 
cording to  their  works.'     This  is  a  scripture  view  of  the 
judgment  seat ;  let  us  now  see  how  this  tribunal  is  adapted 
to  man's  state  and  character. 


50  LECTURE   111. 

Man  is  a  moral  agent,  an  accountable  creature ;    he  pos- 
sesses high  capacities ;  a  capacity  for  the  service  and  love 
of  God  ;  a  capacity  too  by  which  to  resist  God's  authority, 
and  even  to  hate  him,   and  despise  his  government.     Is  it 
not  natural,  and  in  agreement  with  the  fitness  of  things,  that 
God  should,  at  some  stage  of  man's  moral  career,  bring  his 
creature  to  the  test  of  a  righteous  judgment,  and  proceed  to 
fix  upon  him  a  character,    in    accordance   with  his   deeds, 
whether  he  has  been  righteous  or  wicked  ?  It  is  natural  that 
it  should  be  so,  and  we  have  seen  that  the  scriptures  declare 
it  will  be  so.     Now  this  will  be  a  terrible  judgment  for  sin- 
ners ;  all  the  truth  will  come  out  here.     No  sophisticating, 
no  shifting,  no  prevaricating,  no  denying,  no  false  witness, 
all  will  be  open  and  fair,  and  in  the  day   light,   when  this 
judgment  sits.    In  the  present  state  of  things  it  is  somewhat 
difficult  to  pronounce  upon  a  man's  moral  character,  unless 
he  has  been  condemned  or  convicted  in  a  civil  process ;  al- 
though we  may  know  from  the  most  unequivocal  evidence 
that  a  man  is  a  liar,  or  a  hypocrite,  or  a  profligate,  it  is  hard- 
ly safe  to  call  him  so;  his  guilt  must  be  described  in  soft 
and  supple  terms ;  we  must  say  such  a  man  is  mistaken, 
or  he  is  a  cautious  man,  or  a  free  liver.     But  in  the  judg- 
ment of  the  great  day,  character  will  be  fully  developed,  and 
all  iniquity  laid  open  under  its  proper  name  ;  all  will  be  car- 
ried on  here  in  the  most  decided  terms,  without  any  equivo- 
cation and  without  appeal.     But  the  matter  docs  not  end 
here,  here  is  rather  its  beginning.     Justice  is  retributive  ;  if 
the  trial  issues  in  conviction,  judgment  passes  on  to  sen- 
tence, and  to  execution  ;  all  the  solemn  pomp  of  the  tribu- 
nal would  be  mere  pageantry  without  this ;  which  leads  us 
to  observe 

Again,  That  God  will  give  sinners  over  to  that  punish- 
ment their  crimes  deserve.  The  fact  is  asserted  in  many- 
scriptures  :  '  Vengeance  is  mine,  and  I  will  repay,  saith  the 
Lord.  Behold  I  come  quickly  ;  and  my  reward  is  with  me, 
to  give  to  every  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be.'    It  is 


LECTURE  III.  51 

necessary  here  only  to  state  the  fact,  without  enlargement ; 
God  will  send  away  the  w  icked  into  a  state  of  punishment 
in  the  future  and  unseen  world.  This  is  what  our  Inquirer 
denies — there  is  no  future  punishment,  he  says,  and  follows 
the  denial  with  many  declarations,  that,  the  assertion  of  the 
doctrine  of  a  future  retribution  is  not  calculated  to  prevent 
sin  and  promote  holiness,  and  that  it  never  was  preached,  or 
declared,  to  any  soul  under  heaven  for  that  purpose.  This 
then  is  the  sentiment  we  are  to  meet  in  concluding  this  lec- 
ture. 

We  learn,  first,  that  Mr.  B —  is  exceedingly  mistaken  in 
his  conclusion  on  the  doctrine  of  retribution,  he  thinks  it 
was  never  asserted,  or  preached,   by  any  appointed  agents 
of  Jehovah  in  declaring  his  truth  to  the  sons  of  men.     By 
retribution  you  will  bear  in  mind,  that  we  mean  future  pun- 
ishment, or  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  in  a  future  state. 
The  <;  Inquiry"  admits  that  the  Jews  were  often  threatened 
with  punishment  in  Gehenna ;  and  that  they  were   so  pun- 
ished on  the  destruction  of  their  city  and  nation,  but  this 
punishment  he  opposes  to  punishment  in  a  future  state.  No 
such  punishment  was  threatened  or  inflicted  upon  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  so  no  future  punishment  was  threatened  to  any 
soul  under  heaven.     I  am  aware  that  the  "  Inquiry"  on  this 
part  of  the  subject,   as  in  the  former,   speaks  very  incor- 
rectly and  loosely  :    it  says  that  Hell  torments  were  not 
preached — that  endless  or  eternal  misery  was  not  held  out ; 
but  the  adoption  of  these  terms  is  only  to  express  his  senti- 
ments strongly  against  the  simple  doctrine  of  retribution  in 
future  punishment.     It  is  too  late  for  Mr.  B —  to  say,  that 
by  these  terms  he  is  contending  only  against  Hell  torments, 
and  eternal  misery  in  Hell,  but  that  he  admits  a  future  retri- 
bution ;  for  he  has  told  us  at  the  outset,  as  we  have  seen  at 
large,  that  he  is  as  much  opposed  to  future  punishment,  as 
to  eternal  punishment,  and  to  any  misery  in  a  future  state, 
as  to  misery  in  Hell;    and  to  this  we  still  hold  him  ;    but 
here  he  fails  ;  for  if  any  thing  ever  was  proved  by  evidence, 


$2  LECTURE  III. 

we  have  proved  that  the  prophets,  and  apostles,  and  Christ 
himself,  did  very  frequently  preach  with  a  most  threatening 
aspect  to  the  wicked,  and  warned  them  of  a  future  retribu- 
tion. Thus  the  error  into  which  the  Inquirer  has  fallen  is 
most  visibly  before  us.  He  set  out  to  show  that  there  is 
no  future  punishment ;  to  prove  this  or  to  illustrate  his  as- 
sumption, it  is  difficult  to  say  which,  he  goes  on  to  show 
that  Sheol  or  Hades,  frequently  translated  Hell,  is  no  place 
of  punishment.  He  proceeds  to  show  that  there  is  no  fu- 
ture misery  for  the  wicked,  by  declaring  that  no  preacher, 
prophet  or  minister,  commissioned  from  Heaven,  ever 
threatened  men  with  an  eternal  Hell,  endless  misery  in  Hell9 
or  endless  punishment  in  fire  and  brimstone.  Now  I  ask 
this  attentive  and  candid  audience,  whether  this  is  reason- 
ing on,  or  off,  the  agreed  point  of  dispute  ?  To  me  it 
appears  that  our  Inquirer's  proofs  and  illustrations  arc  aside 
the  question  ;  he  asserts  one  thing,  but  tries  to  prove  an- 
other  ;  he  asserts,  There  is  no  future  punishment — he  at- 
tempts to  prove,  There  is  no  eternal  misery  in  Sheol,  Hadesy 
or  Hell.  He  seems  also  to  me  to  be  arguing  in  a  circle. 
There  is  no  future  punishment,  therefore  there  is  no  misery 
in  Hell — there  is  no  misery  in  Hell  therefore  there  is  no  fu- 
ture punishment !  But  negatives  are  the  chief  source  of 
proof  and  illustration.  Hell  is  not  a  place  of  endless  miser ij  ; 
there  is  therefore  no  state  of  future  misery,  neither  did  any 
of  the  ministers  of  religion  in  any  age  of  the  world  preach  the 
doctrine  of  future  misery  to  any  soul  under  Heaven.  But 
after  all,  there  are  some  negatives,  so  declared  to  be  by  our 
Inquirer,  that  we  shall  deny,  and  such  as  we  shall  attempt  to 
reverse.  But  this  in  its  place.  From  the  subject  we  learn 
Secondly,  That  Mr.  B —  is  also  exceedingly  mistaken 
on  the  tendency  of  preaching  a  future  retribution.  He  as- 
serts, not  only  that  the  inspired  ministers  of  religion  did  not 
preach  a  threatened  retribution,  but,  that  the  belief  and  as- 
sertion of  the  doctrine  could  have  no  holy  tendency — Noah, 
Abraham,  Christ  and  the  apostles  did  not  believe  in  a  future 


LECTURE  HI.  $s 

punishment,  and  yet  they  were  good  men. — The  Gentiles 
believed  in  future  punishment  in  Hell,  in  Tartarus,  forever, 
and  yet  they  were  a  very  wicked  people,  and  not  saved 
from  their  licentious  courses.      The  virtue  of  the  former 
persons  and  the  viciousness  of  the  latter  we  admit,  but  the 
reasoning  we  deny.    The  holiness  of  the  good  men,  did  not 
spring  from  their  infidelity  in  retribution,  for  we  have  seen 
that  these  men  did  believe  in  the  doctrine,  and  were  influ- 
enced by  that  faith  :  we  do  not  say  that  their  virtue  was  as- 
sisted by  no  other  motives,  Tor  we  believe  it  was,  but,  that 
fear  of  retribution  was  an  ingredient  in  their  stimulus  to 
good  and  virtuous  action.    Indeed,  this  doctrine  was  a  very 
frequent  theme  of  discourse  ;  I  do  not  say  that  they  adopt- 
ed literally  the  words  held  in  reprobation  by  the  Inquirer  ; 
but  they  preached  retribution  in  very  strong  terms,  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  virtue.     Jehovah  himself  first  reveal- 
ed and  proclaimed  this  doctrine  to  man  :  *  In  the  day  that 
thou  eatest  thereof  thou  shalt  surelv  die.'  Enoch,  the  holiest 
man  in  his  day,  thus  preached  :   ■  Behold,  He  cometh  with 
ten  thousands  of  his  saints  to  execute  judgment  upon  them, 
to  destroy  the  wicked,  and  to  reprove  all  the  carnal  for 
every  thing  which  the  sinful  and  ungodly  have  done,  and 
committed  against  him.' — *  Wo  to  you,  sinners,  when  you 
die  in  your  sins.' — *  When  to  the  receptacle  of  the  dead  their 
souls  shall  be  made  to  descend,  their  evil  deeds  shall  be- 
come their  greatest  torment.    Into  darkness,  into  the  snare, 
and  into  the  flame,  which  shall  burn  to  the  great  judgment, 
shall  their  spirits  enter  ;  and  the  great  judgment  shall  take 
effect  even  forever.'     Thus  prophesied  Enoch,  the  seventh 
from  Adam.     Noah  was  a  preacher  of  righteousness,  and  as 
he  built  his  ark,  warned  the  world  of  the  righteous  retribu- 
tion ready  to  break  upon  them.     Thus  Moses,  the  servant 
of  the  Lord,  just  before  he  resigned  his  breath,  warned  the 
children  of  Israel  in  a  very  lengthy  valedictory  discourse, 
with  blessing  and  cursing.      Jeremiah,  and  indeed  all  the 
prophets,  preach  retribution  in  the  most  solemn  terms ; 

8 


5+  .  LECTURE  III. 

their  language  is  somewhat  various,  but  their  sentiment  is 
similar :   l  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found,  call  ye 
upon  him  while  he  is  near  :   let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way, 
and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts  ;  and  let  him  return 
unto  the  Lord,   and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him  ;  and  to 
our  God  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon. — But  if  the  wicked 
turn  not  he  will  whet  his  sword.'     Jonah  preached  to  the 
Gentiles,  but  he  preached  retribution  :  '  Yet  forty  days  and 
Nineveh  shall  be  overthrown.'     The  Son  of  God  preached 
thus,  and   called  on  his  followers  to  fear  that  retribution 
which  would  issue  in  the  loss  of  soul  and  bodv  in  Gehenna. 
Paul  calls  upon  ■  all  men  everywhere  to  repent,  because  God 
hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world 
in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  ordained  ; 
whereof  he  hath  given  assurance  unto  all  men,   in  that  he 
hath  raised  him  from  the  dead.'    Now,  with  all  these  facts 
and  circumstances  before  us,  how  can  our  Inquirer  say, , 
that  this  doctrine  was  never  preached— nor  was  it  calculate 
ed  (340)  "  to  lead  men  to  repentance  ?"      This  conclusion 
of  Mr.  B — ,  from  whatever  principle  it  be  drawn,  is  evi- 
dently a  very  erroneous  one  ;    it   is  at  variance  with  the 
scriptures  of  both  Testaments — it  is  at  variance  with  every 
thing  that  has  been  established  among  men  under  the  form 
of  government — it  is  at  variance  with  common,  every  day 
experience,  all  the  world  over,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  places 
— which  leads  to  a 

Third  remark.  Our  Inquirer  is  exceedingly  mistaken  on 
the  real  character  of  the  doctrine  he  has  espoused,  i.  e.  the 
doctrine  of  non-retribution  :  he  does  not  appear  to  be  aware 
of  the  source  whence  his  position  springs,  nor  of  that  dead 
sea  into  which  it  must  finally  fall.  Mr.  B —  seems  to  think 
that  he  is  only  relieving  the  teachings  of  morality  from  a  fie- 
ry atmosphere,  a  sulphuric,  acid  gas — he  thinks  he  is  only 
contending  against  Hell  torment  motives,  and  is  sweeping 
away  the  rubbish  of  old  superstition,  as  it  has  been  scatter- 
ed by  old  wives  and  physicians  of  no  value  ;    for  he  pro- 


LECTURE  III.  35 

nounces  this  kind  of  teaching,  "  religious  quackery" — "  the 
very  worst  kind  of  quackery."  Now  Mr.  B —  has  not  dis- 
tinguished between  the  principle  of  this  doctrine,  and  the 
abuse  of  it,  a  very  common  error  into  which  men  fall.  He 
is  sweeping  away  the  fundamental  principle  of  moral  gov- 
ernment, without  seeming  to  be  aware  of  it ;  for  we  have  too 
high  an  opinion  of  his  moral  character  to  admit  the  idea  that 
Mr.  B —  is  a  sceptic  or  a  libertine.  But  if  he  will  only  turn 
about  a  little,  and  review  the  ground  upon  which  he  has  ad- 
vanced, he  will,  we  think,  see  his  mistake.  The  kind  of 
government  for  which  he  contends  can  never  be  adapted  to 
man ;  indeed  our  author's  system  is  destitute  of  the  essen- 
tial principles  of  government ;  it  has  no  control  over  the 
mind,  it  has  no  demand  upon  the  actions  of  a  moral  agent ; 
there  is  nothing  in  it  preceptive  or  sovereign  ;  it  is  a  tame, 
lifeless,  insipid  and  cold  address  to  a  creature  without  a 
heart  and  without  a  conscience.  It  is  a  system,  the  first 
principle  of  which  it  holds  in  common  with  all  the  schemes 
infidelity  has  furnished  for  ages  past.  It  is  the  very  scheme 
to  which  unbelievers  and  men  of  a  libertine  bias  resort. 
Take  away  the  solemn  retributions  of  Christianity,  and  there 
is  scarcely  any  thing  left  to  which  sceptics  object.  As  to 
Tartarus,  the  Hell  of  paganism,  of  which  Mr.  B —  speaks, 
it  exhibits  not  a  principle  of  retributive  justice  as  revealed 
in  the  scriptures  :  Tartarus  was  not  a  place  or  state  of  pun- 
ishment for  transgressors ;  it  was  rather  a  political  limbo,  a 
place  of  fabled  confinement  for  unfortunate  gods  and  kings, 
without  regard  to  their  moral  or  general  character,  but  by 
no  means  a  state  of  retributive  punishment  upon  the  princi- 
ples of  moral  justice.  At  this  Hell  unbelievers  laugh,  and 
the  pagans  laughed  at  it  themselves,  but  the  retributions  of 
revealed  theology  are  such  as  offend  sceptics  exceedingly; 
remove  these,  and  the  offence  ceases.  Now  this  is  what  our 
Inquirer  has  done,  and  the  floods  of  ungodly  men  will  come 
in  :  in  vain  does  he  object — in  vain  does  he  plead  for  the 
purity  of  his  disciples  ;  they  will  be  impure  men,  they  will 


*£  LECTURE  III. 

call  him  master,  and  he  must  acknowledge  them  as  h\s  pu- 
pils. I  am  aware  that  Mr.  B —  will  protest  against  these 
conclusions,  and  I  am  heartily  glad  of  it,  for  it  speaks  the 
purity  of  his  conscience ;  but  I  would  solemnly  call  upon 
him  to  re-examine  his  progress,  for  infidels  of  every  grade 
will  lay  claim  to  him,  and  free  thinkers,  and  free  livers  too, 
will  hold  bv  his  skirts,  and  he  will  not  be  able  to  shake 
them  off.  Universalists  of  the  restoration  class  are  all 
alarmed  at  this  :  the  editor  of  the  Repository  says,  this 
scheme  is  a  sanctuary  for  the  man  that  dies  ■  in  the  very  act 
of  murder;'  making,  we  add,  no  moral  difference  between 
the  thieves  who  robbed  and  maimed  the  man  on  the  road 
from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  and  the  Samaritan  who  bound 
up  his  wounds  and  saved  his  life.  Making  no  difference 
between  the  penitent  malefactor  who  implored  a  dying  Sa- 
viour's compassion  on  the  cross,  and  the  hardened  blas- 
phemer who  execrated  the  same  Saviour  to  his  latest  breath. 

(Ezek.  xviii.  25— 3(V  '  Yet  saith  the  house  of  Israel, 

the  way  of  the  Lord  is  not  equal.  Hear  now,  O  house  of 
Israel,  Are  not  my  ways  equal  ?  Are  not  your  ways  une- 
qual ?  Therefore  I  will  judge  you,  O  house  of  Israel,  every 
one  according  to  his  ways,  saith  the  Lord  God.  Repent 
and  turn  yourselves  from  all  your  transgressions ;  so  iniqui- 
tv  shall  not  be  vour  ruin.' 


■Rewards  and  Punishments  in  a  Future  State  proved  from  the  direcp 

Testimony  of  Scripture. 


THE  WICKED  IS  DRIVEN  AWAY  IN  HIS  WICKEDNESS;  BUT  THE 
RIGHTEOUS    HATH    HOPE    IN    HIS    DEATH. Proverbs   XJV.    32. 

AND  IT  CAME  TO  PASS  THAT  THE  BEGGAR  DIED,  AND  WAS  CARRIED 
BY  THE  ANGELS  INTO  ABRAHAM'S  BOSOM  .*  THE  RICH  MAN  ALSO 
DIED,  AND  WAS  BURIED  J  AND  IN  HELL  HE  LIFTED  UP  HIS  EYES, 
BEING  IN  TORMENTS,  AND  SEETH  ABRAHAM  AFAR  OFF,  AND 
LAZARUS    IN    HIS    BOSOM. Lithe  XV'i.  22,  23, 

My  brethren,  what  do  we  understand  by  Revelation  ? 
Is  it  not  that  knowledge,  the  attainment  of  which  is  beyond 
our  own  means?  Is  not  this  Divine  Revelation?  A  com- 
munication from  the  Divine  Being,  on  subjects  beyond  the 
reach  of  human  intelligence,  beyond  the  grasp  of  the  most 
extended  faculties  of  the  human  mind.  Yes,  this  is  Reve- 
lation ;  and  the  next  question  is,  How  is  such  a  revelation 
to  be  received  ?  And  here  we  must  be  a  little  particular,  in 
distinguishing  it  from  every  thing  else,  that  may  lay  claim 
to  its  characters  and  authorities.  Whatever  I  can  come  at, 
in  the  exercise  of  my  reason,  however  far  it  may  seem  to 
lie  beyond  the  sphere  of  my  more  immediate  action,  is  not 
revelation.  It  was  once  thought  the  earth  on  which  we 
dwell  was  a  flat  plane,  bounded  at  its  edge  by  a  visible  ho- 
rizon ;  but  this  has  been  proved  to  demonstration  to  be  er- 
roneous. The  sun  too,  that  vast  source  of  light,  was  sup- 
pused  to  revolve  daily  around  this  little  ball,  on  which  is 
placed  the  foot  of  man  ;  but  this  also  is  demonstrated  to  be 
the  very  reverse.  These  mistakes,  however,  have  not  been 
corrected  by  any  communication  from  the  Author  of  Na- 
ture :  man  has  come  to  this  knowledge  in  the  exercise  of 
his  own  reason.     Man  has  placed  the  great  sun  in  the  cen- 


38  LECTURE  IV. 

trc  of  a  universe  of  planets,  and  given  him  a  sovereignty 
over  all  the  bodies  within  his  attraction.     Man  can  make, 
or  rather  discover,  this  arrangement  in  the  great  physical 
world,    by  the   order   and  direction  of  his  own  physical 
powers,  guided  by  his  reason.     He  can  draw  lines,   and 
form  these  into  angles  and  curves ;    he  can  ascertain  with 
precision  the  degrees  of  space  and  distance  they  severally 
subtend,  and  so  he  can  go  out  into  space  and  fathom  and 
gauge  the  universe. — But  then  all  the  discoveries,  and  as- 
serted demonstrations   of  reason,   are  liable  to  scrutiny ; 
what  the  reason  of  one  man  pronounces  correct,  the  reason 
of  another  disputes,  and  alters  ;  and  so  the  reasoning  pow- 
ers of  man  may  go  on  without  end.     Nevertheless  there  are 
certain  data,  in  this  material  system,  on  which  man  can  in- 
stitute his  theories,  so  as  to  produce  some  demonstrations 
not  to  be  doubted  or  disputed  :  and  here  man  stays,  beyond 
this  he  only  conjectures — or  waits  for  a  revelation.     Let 
man  prepare  to  take  but  one  step  beyond  his  own  visible, 
tangible,  sensible  self,  and  where  will  he,   where  can  he 
place  that  advancing  foot  ?  All  without  this  limit  is  the  un- 
seen,   the  unknown  woild.— Nay,  within  himself,   some- 
where, but  where,  he  knows  not,  this  unseen,  unknown 
world  challenges  his  adventurous,  prying  thought.   Without 
asking  who,  what,  *  where  is  God  our  Maker  V  it  may  well 
be  asked,  ■  \Y  hat  is  man  V  and  what  man  can  answer — who 
can  say  what  man  is — what  his  order — his  capacities — his 
career — his  destiny  :    he  springs  from  the  dust,  whence  all 
the  other  creatures  spring,   but  he  obtains  dominion  over 
them  all;  majesty  is  intuitive,  he  is  crowned  with  glory  and 
honour.     But  he  rises  to  all  this  by  instinctive,  constitution- 
vA  powers,  for  which  he  has  no  name,  and  this  nameless 
something  constitutes  him  man.     Here  then  we  pause,  for 
here  ail  demonstration  upon  natural  principles  ceases  :  if  we 
obtain  any  farther  information,   it  must  be  from  another, 
and  a  superior  source  of  intelligence,  and  this  communica- 
tion will  be  revelation.     As  soon  as  any  thing  is  communi- 


LECTURB  1Y.  « 

cated  to  us  on  the  subject  of  an  immaterial,  immortal  spirit, 
whether  that  spirit  be  our  own,  or  some  other,  it  is  a  super- 
natural revelation.     Whatever,  therefore,   is  made  known 
to  us  in  relation  to  a  future  state  of  existence,  must  be  by  a 
communication  from  some  being  acquainted  with  that  state, 
and  this  too  must  be  revelation.     We  are  now  prepared  to 
say,  how  such  a  revelation  must  be  received. — It  must  be 
received  by  an  act  of  faith,  and  implicitly  relied  on.     All 
that  reason  has  to  do  in  this  case,  is,  to  examine  and  weigh 
the  evidence  with  which  this  revelation  comes  recommend- 
ed ;  and  it  is  the  province  of  reason  to  examine  this  evi- 
dence with  the  greatest  scrutiny  :   indeed  there  is  nothing 
that  can  be  presented  to  the  human  mind,  which  so  de- 
mands a  strict  examination,  as  that  which  professes  to  be  a 
revelation.     Israel  was  thus  warned  to  be  upon  their  guard, 
and  to  examine  the  pretensions  of  all  who  came  in  the  garb 
of  a  divine  teacher.     So  Jesus  proposed  his  mission   for 
scrutiny,  and  called  upon  his  disciples  to  be  upon  the  watch 
lest  false  Christs  and  false  prophets  should  deceive  them. 
And  John  also  said,  '  Try  the  spirits — for  many  false  teach- 
ers are  gone  out  into  the  world.'  On  these  terms  the  whole 
volume  of  sacred  scripture  is  presented  to  us — and  we  have 
scrupulously  admitted  its  authority  ;  we  have  tried  its  spirit, 
we  have  demanded  a  sign  from  heaven — the  c  sign  manual' 
of  the  Great  King — this  evidence  has  been  granted,  and  we 
acknowledge  the  Bible  to  be  the  Record  of  Divine  Testi- 
mony.    Here  the  scrutinies  of  reason  stay  ;  having  obtain- 
ed evidence,  we  proceed  in  the  exercise  of  faith,  and  take 
the  whole  of  its  communication  for  truth  ;  we  do  not  admit 
revelation  as  a  whole,  and  then  reject  it  in  parts ;  but  receiv- 
ing it  as  a  whole,  we  receive  it  in  all  its  parts,  and  abide  by 
its  testimony  :    this  is  reasonable,  and  all  who  go  upon  a 
contrary  principle,  stumble  and  fall.     So  fell  Nicodcmus, 
who  at  first  promised  to  become  a  fair  disciple  of  Jesus 
Christ :    he  was  a  man  of  considerable  attainment*,  and 
manifested  some  candor  :  but  he  suffered  his  reasonings  to 


60  LECTURE  IV. 

subvert  and  supersede  his  convictions ;    he  acknowledged 
Jesus  as  a  divinely  authorized  teacher,  and  then  refused  to 
admit  the  truth  of  his  testimony.     *  We  know  that  thou  art 
a  teacher  come  from  God' — but  when  Christ  asserted  a 
doctrine,  which  the  rabbi  either  did  not  understand,  or  did 
not  wish  to  learn,  he  said,  in  *  doubting  mood,'   *  How  can 
these  things  be  ?',  This  is  the  error  into  which  Mr.  Balfour 
has  fallen.    He  admits  the  authority  of  scripture  testimony, 
and  then  refuses  to  believe  in  the  doctrines  asserted  therein. 
Thus  have  we  made  our  way  to  the  subject  of  this  lec- 
ture— Rewards  and  punishments  in  a  future  state,  as  reveal- 
ed in  the  holy  scriptures.     This  subject  must,  from  its  very 
nature,  be  a  matter  of  pure  revelation  :    it  is  a  subject  far 
beyond  the  reach  of  human  speculation;   ■  It  is  as  high  as 
heaven  ;  what  canst  thou  do  ?  deeper  than  Hell  (the  abys6  ;) 
what  canst  thou  know  V  To  reason  against  the  revelations 
of  the  unseen  world  from  the  visible  things  of  this  world,  is 
for  the  inhabitants  of  the  torrid  zone,  to  reason  against  the 
icy  congelations  of  the  poles,  from  the  fluidity  of  the  waters 
in  their  latitude— Indeed  more  absurd,    for  no  demonstra- 
tion can  be  brought  to  our  senses   in  evidence  of  a  future 
state,  or  of  the  reality  of  things  pertaining  thereto.     Yes, 
brethren,  we  must  take  revelation  just  as  it  is,  and  believe 
it  without  controverting  its  testimony  on  this  subject  par- 
ticularly :  some  reasonings  on  translation  must  be  admitted, 
but  whatever  is  ascertained  as  the  sense  of  the  original,  must 
be  taken  as  the  *  mind  of  the  spirit.'  These  observations  must 
now  be  brought  into  application ;  the  subject  is  before  us  in 
two  passages  of  Holy  Writ,  one  from  the  Old  Testament, 
the  other  from  the  New.     The  passage  from  the  Old  Tes- 
tament merely  declares  the  doctrine  of  future   retribution  : 
•  The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness ;    but  the 
righteous  hath  hope  in  his  death.'     The  passage  from  the 
New,  contains  a  more  circumstantial  view  of  the  subject ; 
the  good  man  is  conveyed  to  the  society  of  the  righteous,  •  to 
Abraham's  bosom,'  the  wicked  to  scenes  of  misery,  ■  in 


LECTURE  IV.  61 

Hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  being  tormented.'  This  subject 
in  the  Inquiry,  is  brought  to  our  view  in  the  use  and  appli- 
cation of  these  modes  of  expression,  Sheol — Hades — 
Tartarus — Gehenna.  The  first  of  these  is  a  Hebrew 
word,  ^NC  Sheol,  which  signifies  a  concealed  place,  and 
often  the  state  of  the  dead.  The  following,  aW  Hades  is  a 
Greek  rendering  of  Sheol,  not  another  word,  but  the  Greek 
of  which  the  other  is  the  Hebrew  :  it  also  signifies  concealed, 
obscure  or  hidden.  The  two  latter  words,  Tartarus  and  Ge- 
henna, cannot  be  duly  considered  in  this  discourse ;  we 
shall  confine  ourselves  principally  to  Sheol  or  Hades,  the 
same  word. 

Sheol,  it  seems,  from  the  "  Inquiry,"  occurs  64  times 
in  the  Old  Testament ;  it  is  translated  in  the  English  version 
in  3  places  Pit,  29  Grave,  and  32  Hell.     The  first  of  these 
renderings,  Pit,  is  I  apprehend  derived  from  the  Latin,  pu- 
teus  or  put  eum  a  well,  a  sunken  place  or  dent  in  the  earth. 
Grave  is  derived  from  the  German,  Graben,  which  signifies 
a  hollow  made  in  the  ground.    Hell  is  corrupted  from  an 
old  Saxon  word,  Heele  or  Hele,  which  signifies  to  conceal 
or  cover  over,  from  whence  comes  our  common   word  for 
the  cure  of  a  wound,  we  say  it  is  healed :  it  applies  in  some 
countries  to  the  roofing  or  covering  of  a  house  ;  it  is  said, 
when  the  roof  work  is  finished,  to  be  healed  in.     We  see 
from  hence,  that  the  more  literal  meaning  of  Sheol  is  pretty 
well  preserved  in  the  three  English  renderings,  pit,  grave 
and  Hell,  a  place  in  which  the  dead  are  buried,  and  so  con- 
cealed or  put  out  of  our  sight ;  as  Abraham  said  to  the  sons 
of  Heth,  demanding  a  burying  place  among  them,  '  That  I 
may  bury  my  dead  out  of  my  sight.'     Hades,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  the  common  Greek  term  for  expressing  what  is  con- 
veyed by  Sheol,  and  is  so  used  in  the  Septuagint,  the  trans- 
lation  of  the  Hebrew  scriptures  into  Greek  by  the  Seventy. 
Upon  the  original  wrord,  Sheol,  with   its  renderings  we 
have  to  remark 

1.  That  Sheol  signifies  the  state  of  the  departed— the 

9 


62  LECTURE  IV. 

state  of  concealment — the  invisible,  future  world.    With  this 
sense  it  has  been  faithfully  translated  by  the  authors  of  the 
Greek  version  ;  Hades  is  the  term   substituted  for  Sheol* 
and  is  in  as  near  agreement  as  two  languages  can  be.  Sheol, 
through  the  Greek  dW  Hades,  passes  into  English  as  Pit, 
Grave,  Hell.  Here  is  a  greater  variety  of  literal  expression  ; 
three  English  words  to  one  Greek ;    and  there  is  some  dan- 
ger in  this  variety  ;  it  can  hardly  be  expected,   that  these 
three  words  will  be  precisely  of  the  same  acceptation.    Yet 
still  I  believe,  these  three  words,   as  used  in  the  English 
Bible,  generally  express  what  is   intended  by    Sheol  and 
Hades*     When  Hades  has  been  rendered  pit,  the  invisible 
state  of  the  dead  has  been  intended :    grave  also  has  been 
used  for  the  same  idea.     Hell  has  proved  to  be  a  more  un- 
fortunate term.  Hell  has  been  chosen,  at  what  period  I  can- 
not say,  nor  whether  it  has  come  into  a  particular  use  all  at 
once,  or  gradually,  but  Hell  has  been  chosen  as  a  word  by 
which  to  represent  a  future  state  of  misery  ;  it  has  certain- 
ly been  so  used  in  preference  to  pit  and  grave  :  but  there  is 
no  more  punishment  and  misery  in  translating  Hades  into 
Hell  than    into  pit   or  grave  ;    for  Hell  simply  signifies 
the  concealed  state,  as  do  the  other  terms.     And  it  appears 
to  me  also,  that  our  translators  had  no  more  idea  of  convey- 
ing a  sense  of  punishment,  or  misery,  in  the  term  Hell,  than 
they  had  in  the  other  terms.     Mr.  Balfour  observes,  very 
correctly,  (18)  "that  in  several  places  where  the  word  Sheol 
"  is  rendered  Hell   in   the   text,  the  translators  put  grave 
"in  the  margin."      This  shows  at   once  that  the  transla- 
tors    considered  grave   and   Hell    as    synonymous,    and 
that     they    wished    their    readers    should    know    it  also. 
This  observation  of  Mr.  B —  applies,  I   believe,  solely  to 
the  common  version,  that  now  in  use,  king  James'*  Bible,  as 
it  is  usually  called  ;  but  if  we  consult  the  Geneva  Bible,  an 
English  translation  from  Bcza's  Latin,   in  which  the  great 
John  Knox  had  a  hand,  dated  1560,  we  shall  find  the  word 
grave,  often  in  the  text,  where  in  the  common  version,  w 


LECTURE  IV.  63 

have  Hell.  I  will  cite  a  case  or  two.  In  the  xvi.  Psalm 
and  ii.  of  Acts,  in  both  places  instead  of  *  Thou  wilt  not 
leave  my  soul  in  Hell:'  it  is  *  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul 
in  the  graved  In  Job,  '  The  grave  is  naked  before  him,' 
and,  '  it  is  deeper  than  the  grave,  what  canst  thou  know  V 
In  the  lxxxvi.  Psalm,  ■  Thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from 
the  lowest  grave S  The  word  Hell,  however,  is  used  fre- 
quently in  the  same  way  as  it  is  in  the  common  version,  but 
it  is  with  less  seeming  choice  ;  it  appears  to  me  that  in  the 
time  of  this  translation,  Hell,  pit  and  grave  were  synony- 
mous, and  alike  considered  as  representing  the  invisible, 
future  state,  without  one  being  more  indicative  of  misery 
than  the  other.     And 

2.  Remark  upon  these  terms  in  the  original  and  transla- 
tion.    Sheol  in  the  Hebrew,  Hades  in  the  Greek,   and  pit, 
grave,  or  Hell  in  the  English,  do  not  describe  to    us  any 
place  or  the  circumstances  of  any  location  whatever.  Sheol, 
rendered  as  it  may  be,  asserts  and  reveals  to  us  the  future, 
invisible,  spiritual  state  ;  for,  first,  it  cannot  mean  that  place 
we  call  the  grave  literally,  that  place  in   which  the  human 
body  is  laid  to  corrupt  and  consume  away.     Sheol  is  not 
used  for  this  purpose,  another   word  is  used.     When  the 
sepulchre,  tomb  or  burying  place  for  the  body  is  intended, 
the  Hebrew  word  is  "Op  Keber,  which  we  are  told  by  good 
critics,  is  never  translated  Hades  :  and  we  think   it  should 
never  be  rendered  the  grave  ;  a  grave,   a   single  burying 
place  it  may  be,  but  not  the  Hades,  the  Hell,  the  place  ap- 
pointed for  all  living.  When  the  Hebrew  word  lor  sepulchre 
is  rendered  in  Greek,  it  itronpot;  taphos  or  p^a  mnema,  or  some 
other  equivalent  term  signifying  sepulchre  or  monument,  but 
never  Hades.     Neither  is  Hades  ever  confounded  with  fun- 
eral rites  ;  the  place  to  which  the  body  is  assigned,  and  the 
state  of  the  departed,  are  uniformly   kept  separate.      We 
have  a  very  striking  instance  of  this  in  ii.  Acts,  27,  29.  Pe- 
ter is  applying  the  famous  passage  in  the  Psalms  to  Christ, 
when  he  speaks  of  Christ  in  the  words  of  David,  Hades  or 


6*  LECTURE  IV. 

Sheol  is  used  ;  *  Thou  will  not  leave  my  soul  in  Hades  or 
Sheol.1     But  turning  to  the  case  of  David's  burial,  he  says, 
*  Men  and  brethren,  let  me  freely  speak   unto   you  of  the 
patriarch  David,  that  he  is  both  dead  and  buried,  and  his 
sepulchre,  p^a  mnema  is  with  us  to  this  day.'    You   see 
here  very  plainly  that  the  spiritual  state  of  the  departed  is 
very  differently  described  from  the  place  of  the  dead  body. 
You  see  farther,  that  the  grave,  literally  the  burying  place, 
is  not  the  concealed,  invisible  place,  or  state ;  for  David's 
sepulchre  was  before  their  eyes  to  that  day,  and  never  had 
been  concealed.     Sheol  or  Hades  is  the  common  receptacle 
of  the  departed,  without  any  regard  to  the  places  where  their 
bodies  be  buried.   Sheol,  the  original  word  itself,  with  all  its 
descendants  in  translation,  is  in  the  singular  number  and 
form ;  this  is  not  the  case  with  sepulchre,  grave,  &c.  as  a 
burying  place,  for  there  are  burying  places,   sepulchres, 
graves  and  so  on,  but  no  such  pluralities  in  the  state  of  the 
departed.     This  is  too  plain  a  case  to  suffer  farther  argu- 
ment, yet  if  my  hearers  wish  for   greater  satisfaction  they 
have  only  to  consult  their  Bible  in  those  passages  where 
graves  or  sepulchres  occur  in  the  plural  number,  and  then 
see  whether  they  can  find  Sheol  and  Hades  in  the  same  form. 
3.  We  are  now  brought  to  a  distinct  idea  upon  the  state 
and  character  of  the  future  world,  as  expressed  by  Sheol, 
Hades,  Pit,  Grave,  or  Hell.  It  is  evidently  a  spiritual  state, 
a  state  and  condition  suited  to  man  as  disembodied,  and 
separate  from  this  visible,  material  world.      It  is  spiritual, 
in  opposition  to  material,  and  state  in  opposition  to  place. 
It  is  not  material  or  natural,  for,  the  tomb,  the  sepulchre  re- 
ceives the  material  or  natural  man,  but  Hades,  the  spiritual 
man.     It  is  not  a  place,  for  that  which  is  local,  is  in  this 
visible  world,  in  the  tomb,  but  it  is  a  state,  and  Hades  is  that 
state,  invisible  and  concealed  horn  mortal  eye.  Yet  as  spirit- 
ual things  are  described  to  us  in  this  world  by  things  natur- 
al, things  with  which  we  are  familiar  in  this  region  of  sense, 
so,  what  is  spiritual  in  the  future  state  of  things,  must  be 


LECTURE  IV.  6* 

described  to  us  by  things  sensible  and  natural.  Man  dieth 
and  giveth  up  the  ghost,  he  descended)  to  the  tomb,  the 
earth  closeth  upon  him,  and  he  is  concealed  from  the  view 
of  survivors,  and  the  grave  into  which  he  has  descended, 
and  in  which  he  is  concealed,  becomes  a  fit  figure  by  which 
to  represent  the  spiritual  state  of  the  invisible,  future  world. 
If  the  term,  keber,  rendered  tomb,  sepulchre,  or  any  other 
equivalent  word,  had  been  used  to  denote  this  concealed 
place,  it  would  have  been  a  just  figure  for  what  is  conveyed 
under  the  expression  of  Sheol,  Hades,  &c.  Yet  it  must  be 
admitted  that  Hades  is  more  full  and  to  the  point ;  it  is  in 
the  singular  number  and  form,  it  is  generic,  and  goes  di- 
rectly to  describe  the  state  of  the  departed  in  general,  rather 
than  the  local  condition  of  the  remains  of  departed  persons 
in  particular.  But  here  our  reasoning,  as  we  pursue  the 
truth,  takes  a  turn  which  we  must  not  fail  to  follow  under  a 
4th  Article.  The  knowledge  at  which  we  are  arrived  on 
the  subject  of  the  future  state,  whether  it  be  by  means  of 
such  terms  as  Sheol,  Hades,  Keber,  Hell  or  grave,  sepulchre, 
or  tomb,  the  source  of  this  knowledge  is  Revelation,  a  dis- 
tinct communication  from  the  Divine  Spirit — the  King 
eternal,  immortal,  invisible.  Without  a  divine  revelation 
on  this  subject  we  could  have  known  nothing.  The  very 
terms  used  report  our  ignorance,  Hades  !  the  concealed, 
invisible,  unknown  state.  Man  dies ;  all  that  we  actually 
know  of  him  is  hidden  in  the  tomb  ;  for  aught  we  know  he 
ceases  to  be ;  here  all  that  we  have  seen  to  be  human,  de- 
cays and  moulders  to  dust ;  even  that  which  we  considered 
to  be  super  animal,  call  it  spirit,  soul,  mind,  or  what  you 
please,  that  falls  in  the  common  wreck,  no  traces  of  it  re- 
main, it  seems  to  be  body  or  animal  like  the  rest ;  both,  if 
they  are  two,  fall  together,  and  here  the  whole  human  cha- 
racter ceases  to  be  seen ;  here  it  passes  the  boundaries  of 
our  knowledge,  all  beyond  which,  if  any  thing  there  be 
beyond,  is  in  the  future,  unseen  world.  Here  then  if  any 
thing  be  known  it  must  be  by  a  communication  from  this 


66  LECTURE  IV. 

unseen  world.      This  communication  we  have  in  the   holy 
scriptures  ;    and  the  axiom  we  have  to  assume  is  this,  That 
all  we  can  know  in  the  present  state,  of  the  unseen  world,  is 
revealed  in  that  sacred  volume.      I   presume  this  position 
needs  not  to  be  defended  from  the  claims  of  heathen  w lit- 
ers ;  as  I  am  contending  with  a  professed   believer  in  the 
Bible,  it  will  be  admitted,  that,  that  book  ib  the  fountain- 
head  of  all  wisdom  and  authority.     In  citing  scripture  tes- 
timony on  this  article   I  shall  be   brief;    what  God  saith 
once  or  twice  ought  to  be  satisfactory  to  us,  and  we  intend 
at  this  time  to  abide  by  it.  First.  The  scriptures  challenge 
man  upon  his  ignorance  in  this  case.    (Job  xxxviii.    il.J 
1  Have  the  gates  of  death  been  opened  to  thee  ?  or  hast  thou 
seen  the  doors  of  the  shadow  of  death  ?'     Man  had  seen  the 
gates  and  doors  of  the  tomb,  but  the  gates  of  death,  and  of 
the  shadow  of  death,  he  had  not  seen.     Second.  Revelation 
discovered  to  the  patriarchs  the  fact  of  a  future  state.    Jacob 
knew  that  the  departed  lived  in  another  world ;  *  I  will  go 
down  to  the  grave  to  my  son,'  meaning  Joseph,  whom  he 
supposed  to  be  dead.     In  the  book  of  Job,  there  are  some 
fine  and  clear  views  of  immortality.       ' 1  know  that  my 
Redeemer  liveth — and  though  after  my  skin  worms  destroy 
this  body,  yet  in  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God.'     Thrd.    What 
is  revealed  of  the  unseen,  future  world,  Sheol  or  Hades,  is 
a  development   of  man's   moral  character  and  condition. 
The  first  member  of  our  text,  ■  The  wicked  is  driven  away 
in  his  wickedness' — Where  to?     *  The  wicked  shall  be 
turned  into  hell,'  into  Hades,  *  with  all  that  forget  God.' 
Now  the  contrast,  '  But  the  righteous  hath  hope  in   his 
death.'     Can  any  thing  be  asserted  in  these  passages  but  the 
punishment  of  the  wicked  in  a  future  state,  and  the  bless- 
edness of  the  righteous  ?  Can  it  be  the  same  thing  for  a  sin- 
ner to  be  driven  down  to  the  grave  in  his  sins,  with  fearful 
looking  for  of  indignation,  and  for  a  saint  to  fall  asleep  in 
peace  with  God  and  in  hope  of  a  blessed  immortality  ?    Is 
there  a  sinning  man  in  this  assembly  who  is  quite  persuaded 


LECTURE  IV.  67 

that  both  are  alike  ?    This  is  the  language  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  n  uch  more  to  the  same  effect  might  be  adduc- 
ed, but  what  God  says,  even  only  once,  ought  to  be  believed. 
We  must  now  turn  to  the    "  Inquiry"  and   see  what  is 
therein  brought  against  the  positions  we  have  assumed.   Mr. 
B —  shall  speak  loi  himself,  on  the  sense  he  intends  to  at- 
tach to  the  several  words  we  have  glanced  at.     After  along 
quotation   from    Dr.   Campbell,  he  remarks,  (5)  "  1st.  It 
44  shows  that  Sheol  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  Hades  of  the 
44  New,  both  translated  by  our  English  word  Hell,  do  not 
44  signify  a  place  of  endless  misery  for  the  wicked,  but  sim- 
44  ply  the  state  of  the  dead,  without  regard  to  the  goodness 
44  or  badness  of  the  persons,  their  happiness  or  misery.     It 
11  follows  of  course,  that  wherever  those  two  words  are  used 
44  in  scripture,  though  translated  by  the  word  Hell,  we  ought 
44  not  to  understand  such  a  place  of  misery  to  be  meant  by 
44  the  inspired  writers." — 2d.  It  establishes  also  that   our 
44  English  word  Hell,  in  its  primitive  signification,  perfect- 
44  ly  corresponded  to  Hades  and  Sheol,  and  did  not,   as  it 
44  now  does,  signify  a  place  of  endless  misery.     It  denotes 
44  only  what  was  secret  or  concealed. "     He  adds  in  another 
place,  (<-0)  4l  That  Sheol,  translated  Hell,  means  the  grave, 
44  or  state  of  the  dead — Sheol,  whether  translated  pit,  grave, 
44  or  Hell,  is  represented  as  below,  beneath,  and  as  a  great 
44  depth." — (26)  44  Whether  Sheol  is  translated,  pit,  grave  or 
44  Hell,  in  not  one  of  the  passages,  is  it  described  as  a  place  of 
44  misery  or  punishment  for  the  wicked,  or  for  any  one 
C4  else." — (27)  44  So  far  from  its  being  a  place  of  misery,  it  is 
44  also  a  fact,  that  it  is  described  as  a  place  of  insensibility 
44  and  ignorance.     We  are  told  that  there  is, — 4  no  work, 
44  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  wisdom  in  the  grave,  or 
44  Sheol,  whither  thou  goest.'    Eccles.  ix.  10." 

Thus  far  the  44  Inquiry"  on  the  sense  and  application  of 
Sheol.  I  have  been  very  select  in  producing  passages  from 
the  book,  but  I  think  all  has  been  cited  that  Mr.  B —  says 
on  the  question  ;  not  all  in  quantity,  but  all  in  quality  :    I 


•8  LECTURE  IV. 

have  endeavoured  to  bring  into  a  small  compass  every  idea 
our  author  has  expressed  on  the  subject.     Upon  what  he 
thus  says  I  observe,  1st.  Mr.  B —  admits  that  Sheol  in  the 
Hebrew  is  justly  translated  Hades  in  the  Greek.  It  is  grant- 
ed also  that  Hades  passes  well  into  English  as  grave,  pit, 
Hell,  these  three  mean  the  same  thing.    2d.  We  learn  from 
the  quotations  that  the  English  word  Hell,  "  in  its  primi- 
tive signification,  perfectly  corresponds  to  Hades  and  Sheol," 
and  u  means  the  grave  or  state  of  the  dead."    3d.   Sheol, 
Hades,  or  Hell  means  concealed ;  "  it  denotes  onlv  what  was 
secret  or  concealed."  4th.  Mr.  B — considers  Sheol,  Hades '» 
Hell,   he.   as  having   no   relation  to   retribution,  rewards 
and  punishments — no  relation  "  to  the  goodness  or  bad- 
ness of  the  persons,  their  happiness  or  misery" — and  so  he 
goes  on  to  the  conclusion,  that  "it  is  not  described  in  any 
one  passage  of  scripture  as  a  place  of  misery  or  punishment 
for  the  wicked  or  any  one  else."      He  concludes  farther, 
that  it  is  no  moral  state  of  existence,  but  a  state  "  of  insen- 
sibility and  ignorance," — a  state  in  which  there  is  neither 
good  nor  bad,  happiness  nor  misery,  5th.  The  English  word 
Hell,  he  considers  as  a  proper  rendering  of  Hades,  but  that 
it  has  been  made,  since  its  primitive  use,  to  convey  the  idea 
of  the  place  of  future  misery,  and  that  this  use  of  the  word 
is  a  perversion. 

Let  us  now  review  these  sentiments  and  compare  them 
with  each  other.  We  can  but  observe  here,  as  in  former 
branches  of  investigation,  that  Mr.  B —  is  asserting  one 
thing,  and  proving  another.  His  assertion  is,  and  his  book 
was  written  to  make  good  the  assertion,  No  future  pun- 
ishment. But  his  arguments,  his  proofs,  and  his  illustra- 
tions are  for  No  eternal  punishment.  This  inconsistency 
running  all  through  the  book,  gives  us  a  deal  of  trouble, 
while  it  contributes  not  to  the  advancement  of  the  argument 
on  either  side.  Again.  I  am  not  sure  that  our  Inquirer  is 
distinctly  understood  upon  the  article  of  Sheol  or  Hades. 
He  thinks  it  obvious  that  Sheol,  translated  Hell,  means  the 


LECTURE  IV.  69 

grave,  or  state  of  the  dead.  Does  he  by  the  grave  and  state 
of  the  dead  mean  the  tomb,  or  sepulchre,  the  place  literally 
in  which  the  dead  body  is  laid  ?  for  Sheol  may  literally 
mean  the  place  for  the  dead  body  ;  and  his  illustration  from 
"  Solomon  speaking  of  a  lewd  woman"  goes  rather  to  con- 
firm this  presumption  ;  "  Solomon  says,  *  her  house  is  the 
way  to  hell,'  which  he  immediately  explains,  by  adding, 
going  down  to  the  chambers  of  death — her  feet  go  down  to 
death — her  steps  take  hold  on  hell.'  "  We  know  Mr.  B  — 
does  not  believe  in  future  punishment,  his  book  is  written 
to  prove  that  there  is  no  such  thing;  then  by  Hell,  death 
and  the  chambers  of  death  he  cannot  mean  future-state  pun- 
ishment, but  literally  death  and  the  grave.  Here  then  we 
are  left  to  conclude  that  Sheol,  Hades  and  Hell  mean  not  a 
future  state,  but  the  visible  grave,  in  which  the  mortal  re- 
mains are  deposited.  I  do  not  wish  to  force  any  meaning 
on  Mr.  B — 's  words  nor  give  them  a  sense  foreign  to  his 
design,  but  if  he  writes  loosely  and  indistinctly  he  cannot 
expect  to  escape  without  correction.  But  farther,  these  sen- 
timents, thus  brought  to  our  view,  seem  to  me  to  be  at  va- 
riance, and  in  opposition  to  one  another.  Mr.  B —  admits, 
as  a  thing  no  one  disputes,  that  Sheol  is  justly  translated  by 
Hades.  Let  us  inquire  of  the  Greeks  what  they  meant  by 
Hades,  aW,  and  of  the  Jews  what  they  thought  of  it.  And 
here,  it  would  be  a  contemptible  affectation,  were  I  to  pre- 
tend to  open  to  you  any  new  critical  light,  upon  a  subject  so 
well  and  so  amply  discussed  already  ;  but  as  our  method  of 
discourse  must  be  rendered  as  popular  as  possible,  it  is  ne- 
cessary that  we  offer  you  the  best  information  within  our 
reach.  The  Hebrew  scriptures  were  translated  into  Greek, 
between  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  canon,  and  the  ad- 
vent of  Christ.  The  history  of  the  Septuagint,  as  it  is  com- 
monly denominated,  is  involved  in  much  fable  and  uncer- 
tainty, particularly,  as  it  regards  the  persons  of  the  transla- 
tors, their  exact  number,  the  circumstances  under  which 
they  performed  the  task,  and  also  the  date  of  their  work ; 

10 


90  LECTURE  IV. 

but  still  the  translators  must  have  been  Jews,  Jews  bv  na- 
tivity  or  conversion,  men  well  acquainted  with  the  original 
from  whence  they  were  to  translate,  and  with  the  Greek  in- 
to which  they  were  to  translate.      They  knew  that   Sheol, 
when  it  related  to  the  state  of  the  departed  in  general,  meant 
the  unseen  or  concealed  future  state  :    they,   therefore,  in 
rendering  it  into  Greek  chose  in  that  language  a  word,  or  a 
compound  of  words,  meaning  the  same  thing  ;    Hades  was 
that  word.    But  the  question  now  is,  how  came  the  heathen 
Greeks  to  be  in  possession  of  a  word  so  expressive  of  a  fu- 
ture state,  a  word  in  their  language  meaning  the  same  thing 
as  Sheol,  a  word  of  divine  inspiration  or  of  divine  applica- 
tion at  least  ?  Mr.  Balfour  can,  it  seems,  give  us  some  clue 
to  this  problem.       He  intimates  that  the  Greeks  obtained 
this   knowledge   from    their  heathen  oracles.       He   says, 
(26)  '.'  That  the  heathen  Greeks  seem  not  only  to  have  at- 
M  ti  ched  similar  ideas  to  the  word  Hades,  as  the  Hebrews 
!'  did  to  the  word  Sheol,  but  also  the  additional  idea,  that  in 
"  Hades  persons  were  punished  or  rewarded,  according  to 
"  their  merits  or  demerits — This  (he  adds)  was  their  own 
"  addition  ;  for  no  such  idea  seems  to  be  conveyed  in  all  the 
"  Old  Testament  by  the  word  Sheol."     Observe  here,  our 
author  says,  that  "  the  heathen  Greeks  attached  similar  ideas 
to  the  word  Hades,  as  the  Hebrew  writers  did  to  the  word 
Sheol ;"  now  in  Mr.  B — 's  opinion  the  Hebrews  attached 
to  Sheol  the  idea  of  death,  the  chambers  of  death,  the  grave  ; 
mind,  not  a  future  state  of  being — of  doing — or  of  suffering, 
not  a  moral  state,  but  a  state  of  ignorance  and  insensibility \ 
a  state  in  which  men  are  not  good  or  bad — neither  happy  nor 
miserable ;  this  is  the  idea  the  Greeks  had  of  Hades,  as  well 
as  the  Jews,  onlv  the  Greeks  added  to  this  state  a  state  of 
retribution,  rewards  and  punishments  according  to  merit  or 
demerit  in  the  present  world  ;  that  is,  the  Greeks  consider- 
ed the  moral  character  of  man  passing  from  this  "  present 
world"  into  Hades,  where  man  as  a  moral  agent  is  punish- 
ed or  rewarded,  which  is  either  happy  or  miserable.     But 


LKCTURE  IV.  •  M 

how  does  Mr.  B —  make  this  hold  together?  The  Greeks 
believed  that  Hades  was  a  state  of  death,  of  ignorance  and 
of  insensibility.  And  at  the  same  time  they  did  not  believe 
it  to  be  so,  for  they  believed  that  Hades  was  a  state  in  which 
men  were  rewarded  or  punished,  were  happy  or  miserable, 
according  to  their  moral  character,  merit  or  demerit !  Eve- 
ry body  must  see  at  once  that  the  Greeks  could  not  be  be- 
lievers in  such  incongruities.  As  a  rcmedv  in  this  case, 
our  Inquirer  may  perhaps  refer  us  to  the  circumstance  we 
have  quoted,  but  of  which  as  yet  we  have  taken  no  notice, 
namely,  that  this  idta  of  retribution  in  Hades  was  their  own 
invention :  the  heathen  Greeks  appended  this  idea  to  their 
Hades,  for  no  such  idea  was  conveyed  in  all  the  Old  Testa- 
ment by  the  word  SheoL  Of  this  asserted  fact  Mr.  B —  gives 
us  no  proof;  neither  is  there  any  evidence  before  the  world, 
that  the  heathen,  of  any  nation,  invented  the  doctrine  of  a 
future  retribution  in  rewards  and  punishments.  The  con- 
trary  is  in  evidence,  and  I  assert  it  without  the  least  fear  of 
contradiction,  that  what  the  heathen  knew  of  a  future  state, 
they  received  directly,  or  indirectly,  from  divine  revelation, 
the  same  source  originally  as  did  the  Jews.  It  is  true,  that 
all  the  heathen  had  very  imperfect  ideas  on  this  subject,  and 
many  were  their  inventions  and  additions,  but  the  idea  sim- 
ply was  from  a  divine  source.  Here  then  we  see,  that  the 
Seventy  faithfully  translated  Sheol  in  the  Hebrew  by  Hades 
in  the  Greek.  If  they  had  known  that  Sheol  meant  only 
the  grave,  the  place  of  the  dead,  and  not  the  future  world, 
they  would  have  chosen  some  other  term  suited  to  the 
grave  or  place  of  the  dead,  and  not  Hades,  the  state  and  do- 
mains of  the  living.  We  see  farther,  that  the  Jews  did 
know,  and  that  very  well,  that  Sheol  was  the  future  state, 
and  that  also  the  state  of  the  departed  in  Sheol  was  a  state 
of  retribution.  The  Inquiry  says,  "  No  such  idea  seems 
to  be  conveyed  in  the  Old  Testament  by  the  word  Sheol." 
He  tells  us  in  another  place  that  Sheol  or  Hades  means 
"  simply  the  state  of  the  dead,"  without  any  regard  to  their 


7f  0  LECTURE  IV. 

case  in  a  moral  point  of  view.    Again,  he  says,  "  It  denotes 
only  what  was  secret  or  concealed."     Here  Mr.  B — 's  sen- 
timents and  interpretations  contradict  one  another.   If  Sheoi 
mean  simply  the  state  of  the  dead  without  any  regard  to 
their  moral  condition,  as  he  says  it  does,  then  it  does  not 
denote  also  their  condition  in  the  invisible  world,  the  state 
he  denominates  "secret   or  concealed;"  both  cannot  be 
true.     But  the  fact  is  the  Hebrew  scriptures  do  represent, 
by  a  variety  of  phraseology,  a  future  state  of  retribution  : 
our  text,  the  former  part  of  it,  has  been  offered  as  an  ex- 
ample.    Isaiah  (xiv.)  in  the  strongest  language  sets  before 
us  the  condition  of  men  in  the  future  world — in  Hades  too. 
'  The  dead  are  stirred  up— even  all  the  chief  ones  of  the 
earth — all  the  kings  of  the  nations  are  raised  up  from  their 
thrones.'     Here  is  an  exhibition  of  the  living — not  of  dead 
corpses :  the  language  is  highly  figurative,  but  it  is  a  repre- 
sentation of  a  moral  scene  in  the  spiritual  world ;  and  there- 
fore the  language  must  be  figurative.     What   know  we  of 
the  spiritual  or  moral  world,  but  as  it  is  brought  down  to  our 
comprehension  by  apt  and  common  similies  ? 

When  I  began  to  write  on  this  controversy,  I  had  read 
the  "  Inquiry"  through  with  thought  and  care  ;  many  sec- 
tions and  passages  I  had  considered  again  and  again  ;    the 
result  was,  that  I  was  almost  persuaded  Mr.  B —  had  the 
truth  in  great  measure  on  his  side,  in  regard  to  the  real  and 
doctrinal  application  of  Sheol  and  Hades.     I  was  rather  dis- 
posed to  think  that  little  could  be  proved  of  future  retribu- 
tion from  the  state  of  men  in  Sheol  or  Hades,    But  having, 
in  the  course  of  these  exercises,  been  called  more  minutely 
and  carefully  to  examine  the  arguments  and  methods  of 
argument  adopted  in  the  *'  Inquiry,"  I  have  been  prevented 
from  settling  down  upon  such  a  conviction.     What  there- 
fore may  appear  in  the  foregoing,  as  inclining  to  Mr.  B — *s 
scheme  in  regard  to  Sheoi  and  Hades,  must  be  taken  by 
my  hearers  with  many  grains  of  allowance,  only  as  the  gra- 
tuitous concessions  of  a  candid  and  inquiring  mind.    Upon 


LECTURE  IV.  78 

entering  more  fully,  in  this  discourse,  into  our  author's 
theory,  1  have  discovered  the  very  sandy  foundation  on 
which  this  whole  fabric  is  reared.  Sheol,  I  perceive,  is  ve- 
ry seldom  used  in  direct  application  to  the  grave  as  the 
place  of  the  dead,  and  almost  always  in  relation  to  the  future 
•world,  the  state  and  condition  of  departed  spirits.  And  in 
this  state  too,  I  observe  that  God  particularly  shows  his  in- 
dignation to  sinners — here  it  is  that  I  find  a  righteous  re- 
tribution *  the  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness ;' 
he  goes  into  the  future  state,  into  the  concealment  of  Sheol, 
laden  with  his  iniquities,  for  ■  his  works  follow  him  ;'  ■  but 
the  righteous  hath  hope  in  his  death  ;'  he  enters  on  the  fu- 
ture state  with  the  hope  of  a  blissful  immortality,  and  his 
works  follow  him  too  ;  for  every  one  shall  receive  accord- 
ing to  what  he  hath  done  whether  it  be  good  or  bad. 

There  is  another  thing  also  very  plainly  to  be  seen,  name- 
ly, That  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution  was  not  taught 
the  Jews  by  the  heathen,  as  our  Inquirer  boldly  asserts  it 
was ;  but  the  heathen  learnt  it  of  the  Jews,  from  the  He- 
brew scriptures,  the  only  source  of  divine  knowledge.  We 
are  now  prepared  to  say,  that  Mr.  B —  might  have  spared 
himself  the  trouble  of  writing  more  than  nine  tenths  of  all 
that  matter  he  has  gathered  from  the  Apocrypha  and  Tar- 
gums.  There  is  but  one  good  end,  that  I  can  see,  gained 
by  all  this  research  in  these  uninspired  writings,  and  that  is 
directly  opposed  to  the  object  aimed  at  by  our  author.  Mr. 
B—  has  given  us,  in  many  a  lengthy  detail,  proofs  irre- 
fragable, that  the  Jews  of  Apocryphal  date,  had  learnt  the 
doctrine  of  retribution  from  their  own  inspired  scriptures. 
For  as  soon  as  the  inspired  canon  is  closed,  and  the  visions 
of  the  Almighty  cease,  the  scribes  and  teachers  of  the  law 
write  and  deliver  discourses  and  comments,  glossaries  and 
paraphrases  upon  the  Holy  Volume  :  in  these  treatises,  call 
them  Apocrypha  or  Targum,  or  what  else  you  please,  they 
never  contend  for  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution,  the  doc- 
trine is  taken  for  granted,  as  a  doctrine  of  divine  revelation 


?±  LECTURE  IV. 

found  in  the  law  and  the  prophets.     There  is   one  Apocry- 
phal Book,  at  which  our  author  has  scarcely  glanced,  a  pas- 
sage of  which  has  been  sanctified  by  an  inspired  quotation, 
to  which  I  must  refer  ;  it  is  The  Prophecy  of  Enoch,    The 
sacred  passage  is  in  Jude's  Epistle,  quoted  in  our  foregoing 
lecture,  with  another   passage  from  the  text  of  the  same 
book.     From  this  book,  whether  it  be  genuine,  as  a  whole, 
or  spurious,  forged  or  corrupted,  mutilated  or  outraged, 
we  learn  what  were  the  ideas  of  the  Jews,   in  Apocryphal 
times,  on  the  subject  of  a  future  state,  as  a  state  of  rewards 
and  punishments.     The  language  on  the  subject  of  future 
punishment  is  much  more  expressive  and  distinct  than  any 
that  I  have  observed  in  those  passages  referred  to  by  the  In- 
quirer in  the  books  of  Esdras,  Tobit,  Wisdom,  Ecclesias- 
ticus,  &c.     In  these  books  Hades  is  represented  in  terms 
very  similar  to  the  terms  generally  used  by  the  prophets  ; 
but  the  terms  of  description  in  Enoch  resemble  those  strong- 
er and  more  particular  terms  used  by  the  sacred  writers; 
such  as  in  Moses,  ■  A  fire  is  kindled  in  mine  anger,  and 
shall  burn  to  the  lowest  Hell;'    or  in  Isaiah,    'Who  can 
dwell  with  everlasting  burnings,'  with  some  other  similar 
passages :  Enoch  has  many  such.     But  we  mean  to  offer 
this  for  no  more  than  it  is  worth  :  it  only  shows  us  that  the 
Jews  at  the  time  this  book  was  written,  or  received,  believ- 
ed in  the  future  punishment  of  the  wicked.      This  book, 
however,  has  something  to  recommend  it  which  the  others 
have  not.     One  passage  in  it  is  by  inspiration  sanctioned  in 
the  New   Testament,  and  ascribed  to  Enoch  the  seventh 
from  Adam.     This  passage  is  pronounced  prophetic,  and  is 
called  in  to  confirm  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state,  and  a  fu- 
ture retribution  to  the  wicked.     These  circumstances  alone 
give  some  additional  importance  to  the  whole  of  the  book, 
but  more  especially  to  all  those  texts  which  are  in  accord- 
ance with  that  one  cited  by  the  divinely  inspired  Jude. 

On  Apocryphal  times  I  must  be  permitted  to  remark 
once  more.     Whatever  might  have  been  the  unity  of  that 


LECTURE  IV.  75 

faith  publicly  professed  by  the  Jews,  during  the  days  of 
their  inspired  prophets,  one  thing  is  very  clear,  from  their 
undoubted  history,  that,  during  that  time  which  comes  in 
between  Malachi  and  Jesus,  the  Jewish  church  had  split  in- 
to two  theological  parties  ;  and  these  two  parties,  with  their 
respective  faiths,  will  very  much  assist  in  our  discussion. 
As  the  vision  of  heaven  ceased,  learned  men  began  to  spec- 
ulate. Some  fertile  minds  added  to  God's  written  word, 
and  a  load  of  superstition  and  error  succeeded.  At  this, 
some,  more  reasonable  souls  took  disgust,  but  then,  run 
into  the  opposite  extreme  and  denied  a  great  part  of  the  in- 
spired  testimony.  They  philosophised  upon  the  volume  of 
revelation,  till  it  became  with  them  a  conviction,  that  the 
scriptures  revealed  no  spiritual  world,  nor  any  spiritual  agen- 
cy or  existence  but  Deity  :  they  could  of  course  see  no 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments :  man  could  have 
no  immortal  part,  there  could  be  no  resurrection — all  was 
material  except  God,  and  all,  as  far  as  it  respected  man, 
would  end  in  this  present  state.  They  cultivated  virtue  upon 
a  principle  of  disinterested  benevolence,  without  hope,  with- 
out fear.  When  this  party  of  free  thinkers  grew  into  a  sect, 
they  were  denominated  Sadducees  after  ASaata,said  to  be  their 
leader.  The  former  sect  were  denominated  Pharisees  : 
both  these  occupy  a  prominent  station  in  the  Jewish  church, 
in  the  time  of  our  Saviour.  The  Pharisees,  whatever  might 
have  been  their  superstition,  and  however  they  might  have 
neutralized  much  of  the  divine  testimony  by  vain  traditions, 
were,  notwithstanding,  believers  in  the  great  essentials  of 
the  Jewish  faith.  But  almost  all  of  these  essentials  the  Sad- 
ducees denied.  When  our  Saviour  opened  his  ministry 
and  asserted  the  doctrines  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  the 
Pharisees  were  reproved  for  their  superstition,  but  applaud- 
ed for  their  faith.  The  Sadducees  were  condemned  alto- 
gether for  their  infidelity \  and  scepticism  :  the  article  of  the 
Future  State  is  the  particular  on  which  Jesus  pronounces 
them  both  ignorant  and  ungodly ;  *  Ye  do  err  (said  he  to 


76  LECTURE  IV. 

them,)  not  knowing  the  scriptures  and  the  power  of  God.' 
Reviewing  the  faith,  or  rather  the  unbelief  of  the  Sadducees, 
we  cannot  but  be  struck  with  the  similarity  of  their  sys- 
tem and  Mr.  Balfour's.  Much,  if  not  all  our  author  has 
written  on  the  Apocryphal  age,  seems  designed  to  bring 
Sadduceeism  into  credit,  in  opposition  to  scripture,  and  the 
power  of  God.  Ignorance  of  the  future  state  was  the  sub- 
ject of  boast  with  the  Sadducees,  and  there  is  much  of  the 
same  with  the  "  Inquiry."  Here  we  shall  stay  our  remarks 
upon  Apocryphas  and  Targums,  and  proceed  from  the  Old 
Testament  to  the  New.  As  we  take  our  leave  of  the  Old 
Testament  ground,  we  carry  with  us  a  solid  conviction, 
that  the  doctrine  of  future  punishment  was  declared  in  the 
Law  and  the  Prophets  ;  and  that  Sheol  or  Hades>  as  the 
invisible  state,  is  the  state  of  future  retribution  to  all  that 
do  wickedly  and  forget  God. 

It  now  remains  that  we  enter  upon  New  Testament 
ground — ground  consecrated  by  the  name  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  The  latter  part  of  our  text  demonstrates  to 
every  unprejudiced  mind  what  were  the  Jewish  inspired 
views  of  Sheol  or  Hades.  But  the  view  of  Hades,  as  given 
in  this  passage,  does  not  come  suddenly  upon  the  reader  of 
the  New  Testament.  The  doctrine  of  a  future  retribution 
is  preached  by  John  the  Baptist,  the  Saviour's  forerunner ; 
he  takes  up  the  subject  as  left  him  by  Malachi,  the  last  wri- 
ter of  the  Old  dispensation,  and  so  John  carries  forward  in 
his  ministry,  the  solemn  truth  till  he  gives  up  his  mission 
to  Christ.  Christ,  the  last  and  greatest  messenger,  com- 
missioned from  the  court  of  heaven,  reiterates,  but  in 
stronger  terms,  and  with  additional  tropes  of  terror,  the 
doctrine  of  future  retribution.  These  we  shall  notice  under 
their  proper  head  ;  but  the  parable  of  the  rich  man  falls  un- 
der this  article.  '  There  was  a  certain  rich  man  which  was 
clothed  in  purple  and  fine  linen,  and  fared  sumptuously 
every  day.  And  there  was  a  certain  beggar  named  Lazarus, 
which  was  laid  at  his  gate  full  of  sores.     And  desiring  to  be 


LECTURE  TV.  7? 

fed  with  the  crumbs  which  fell  from  the  rich  man's  table  : 
moreover  the  dogs  came  and  licked  his  sores.  And  it  came 
to  pass  that  the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the  angels 
into  Abraham's  bosom  :  the  rich  man  also  died,  and  was  bu- 
ried :  and  in  Hell  (Hades)  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being  in 
torments,  and  seeth  Abraham  afar  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his 
bosom.'  We  have  here  before  us  what  has  been  called 
a  parable.  Our  Divine  Teacher  very  frequently  spoke 
to  the  people  in  the  use  of  such  a  figure  of  speech.  Many 
things  Jesus  taught  in  parables ;  but  generally,  I  believe, 
he  taught  principally  one  thing  only  in  each  parable  ;  yet 
the  whole  parable,  as  a  figure,  is  made  up  of  circumstan- 
tial parts  probable  or  real ;  at  least  our  Saviour's  parables 
are ;  in  the  Old  Testament  some  are  otherwise  ;  but 
Christ's  are,  I  think,  all  very  natural  and  evidently  gather- 
ed from  circumstances  within  the  reach  of  our  own  con- 
ception or  imagination.  Yet  there  must  be  some  allowance 
made  for  the  peculiar  case  the  parable  is  called  in  to  assist ; 
if  the  case  be  between  man  and  man,  or  within  our  visible 
and  material  world,  things  with  which  we  are  familiar  will 
be  selected  :  but  if  the  case  be  a  more  moral  one  or  be- 
longing to  spiritual,  or,  as  our  Lord  says,  '  heavenly- 
things,'  then  the  figures  will  be  gathered  from  circumstan- 
ces of  a  more  spiritual  character,  such  as  we  can  only  know 
by  revelation.  Let  us  apply  these  remarks.  The  parable 
of  the  Good  Samaritan,  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  and  of  the 
Ten  Virgins,  might  have  been  real  history  ;  all  the  circum- 
stances come  within  our  experience.  The  Sower,  and  the 
Tares  of  the  Field,  are  all  probable,  and  almost,  if  not  all  the 
circumstances,  are  applied  by  Christ  to  the  case  he  has  to 
establish.  The  parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  is 
furnished  with  imagery  from  both  worlds,  the  visible  and 
the  invisible,  this  and  the  future.  The  object  of  the  para- 
ble is  evidently  to  inculcate  implicit  faith  in  revelation.  In 
order  to  this  the  Saviour  represents  a  sensual  sinner,  a  mere 
man  of  this  world,  driven  away  in  his  wickedness ;  in  this 

11 


7j  LECTURE  IV. 

state  of  retribution  the  sinner  finds,  too  late,  the  sad  conse- 
quences of  his  infidelity  and  sensuality  ;  he  implores  com- 
passion,  but  in  vain ;   he  then  abandons  himself  to  despair, 
but  prays  that  his  kindred,  yet  living,  may  be  warned  and 
persuaded  by  motives  more  powerful  than  those  himself  re- 
sisted, lest  they  likewise  should  die  In  their  sins  :  but  here 
also  he  fails,  and  is  told  that  faith  in  what  God  has  already 
revealed  is  required,  by  which  alone  men  can  escape  future 
punishment:    God  has  furnished  a  sovereign  remedy;    if 
men  fail  to  embrace  this  they  perish.     This  appears  to  me 
to  be  the  sense  and  application  of  the  parable ;    and  all  the 
imagery  is  in  unison. 

Before  we  take  a  view  of  Mr.  B — 's  sentiments  on  this 
parable,  let  us  look  at  it  a  little  more  distinctly  ourselves. 
This  parable  is  not  so  circumstantially   introduced  as  some 
others  are ;  the  time  and  the  occasion,  however,   may   be 
gathered  from  what  goes  before  in  the  narrative.     The  per- 
sons present  were  Pharisees  ,  in  his  discourse,  at  this  time, 
he  had  touched  upon  their  particular  propensities,  especially 
their  worldliness  and  love  of  gain.     Their  rejection  of  John 
Baptist  too,  was  a  subject  of  reflection — for  although  John 
had  wrought  no  miracle,  yet 4  he  was  a  burning  and  a  shining 
light:'  ( Matt.  xi.  )2,  13,^  the  spirit  and  power  of  Elias 
attended  his  ministry  ;  but  these  worldly  Pharisees  'rejected 
the  counsel  of  God  against  themselves,   being  not  baptized 
of  him.'  (Luke  vii.  30.  J     These  reflections  the   Pharisees 
heard  with  indignation,  and  derided  the  blessed  Jesus,  in- 
stead of  submitting  to  him,  which  was  adding  to  all  their 
former  guilt.     A  sign  too  they  demanded,  for  as  Jesus  had 
dealt  so  severely  with  them,  and,  as  they  thought,  had  as- 
sumed so  much,  they  would  know  by  what  authority  he 
did  such  things ;  but  as  to  any  sign,  or  exhibition  of  com- 
mission, he  would  offer  none,  except  what  already  had  ap- 
peared, the  word  of  God — the  infallible  testimony — the 
Law,  one  tittle  of  which  could  not  fail.     These  things   he 
urged  upon  the  superstitious  and  worldly  Pharisees,  and 


LKCTtruE  IV.  :» 

under  these  circumstances  he  introduced  the  parable  now 
to  be  considered  ;  and  we  shall  see  at  once  its  adaptation  to 
these  cases.  The  principal  object  of  this  parable,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  to  show  and  to  enforce  the  sufficiency  of  di- 
vine revelation,  to  reprove  those  Jews  who,  in  the  true  spirit 
of  an  ungodly  world,  would  run  all  risks  so  that  they  might 
gratify  their  sensual  and  sordid  appetites.  Here,  then,  is 
the  picture  drawn  of  a  '  son  of  Abraham' — 4  a  rich  man,' 
well  clothed  and  well  fed,  like  another  rich  man  of  whom 
Jesus  tells  us  in  another  place,  so  full  and  so  rich,  that 
he  forgot  not  only  his  own  original,  but  all  the  poor 
he  had  left  behind  ;  he  had  '  much  laid  up  for  many 
years,'  and  was  quite  independent,  and  he  had  no  doubt 
but  he  should  live  to  enjoy  it.  The  prophets  de- 
scribe many  such  Jews,  '  sons  of  Abraham,'  and  '  sons 
of  Aaron,'  wallowing  in  the  emoluments  of  office,  without 
any  regard  to  the  day  of  accounts.  To  set  this  man's 
character  in  a  stronger  light,  he  is  brought  into  contact 
with  a  poor  man,  *  a  beggar  full  of  sores,  laid  at  the  rich 
man's  gate,  desiring  to  be  fed  with  the  crumbs  that  fell 
from  the'  daily  replenished  table.  Nothing  is  said  as  to 
the  morals  of  these  two  men,  the  rich  man  and  the  beggar; 
their  characters  respectively  seem  to  be  modelled  upon  their 
outward  condition  ;  'the  rich  man'  is  sensual,  self-important, 
proud,  neglectful  of  the  lowly. — The  other  is  submissive, 
suppliant,  content,  humble.  Pride  and  humility  you  know, 
go  a  great  way  in  the  formation  of  men's  moral  characters. 
The  drama  proceeds,  and  more  is  depicted  than  the  '  tragic 
muse'  can  inspire.  These  two  men  depart  this  world  ;  the 
poor  man  first,  he  falls  a  sacrifice  to  poverty  and  neglect. 
Into  what  grave  he  descended,  we  know  not ;  nothing  is 
said  of  his  funeral ;  but  his  immortal  spirit  is  carried  by 
heaven  appointed  messengers  to  the  society  of  Patriarchs, 
to  sit  at  the  same  table  as  Abraham,  to  recline  on  Abra- 
ham's bosom. — "  The  rich  man  also  died  and  was  buried, 
where  ?  in  Hades  ?  No,  not  in  Hades,  for  we  shall  find  him 


so  LECTURE  IV. 

there  presently  alive,  not  a  corpse.     If  he  was  buried,  I  ap- 
prehend it  was  his  dead  body,  and  that  literally  in   a  grave, 
in  a  monumental  tomb — sepalchrnm,  monumentum.     What 
follows?  *  And  in  Hell,  in  Hades,  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  be- 
ing in  torments :'    not  the  eyes  of  his  pampered  carcase, 
these  were  sealed  up  in  the  darkness  of  death,  till  the  heav- 
ens be  no  more.     Here  the  parable  opens  to  us  the  future 
state — Hades,  the  world  of  spirits.     Here  are  the  two  men, 
but  one  is  i  comforted'  the  other  is  ?  tormented.'      I  shall 
not  dilate  upon  the  strong,  figurative  language,  here  repre- 
senting the  misery  of  the  sufferer,  only  that  his  condition  in 
this  future  state  was  so  widely  different  from  that  of  the 
other  man,  that  there  could  be  no  fellowship  between  the 
condition  of  the  one,  and  that  of  the  other.     Lazarus  could 
perform  no  office  by  which  to  assuage  the  rich  man's  afflic- 
tion— a  great  gulph  separates  them,  so  that  they  are  a  great 
way  apart,     f  Besides  all  this,'  there  is  no  appointed  way 
back  to  the  visible  state,  to  this  world  ;  no  messengers  from 
the  dead  to  the  living  ;  no  warnings  from  the  future  state  to 
the  present.     Here  they  have  God's  word,  and  if  men  would 
have  everlasting  life,  they  must  believe  it,  and  live  in  the 
practice  of  it,  or  go  to  the  unseen  world,  to  know  that  the 
'  jealousy'  of  an  offended  God  '  is  as  cruel  as  the  grave  ;  the 
coals  thereof  are  coals  of  fire  which  hath  a  most  vehement 
flame.' 

By  this  parable,  I  apprehend  that  our  Saviour  intended 
to  give  us  some  distinct  and  correct  views  of  the  future 
state  ;  and  that,  especially,  as  a  future  state  of  happiness  is 
connected  with  faith  in  God  and  conformity  to  his  revealed 
will ;  and  so  he  has  given  us  a  view  of  the  character  and 
condition  severally  of  such  as  fear  God  and  serve  him,  and 
such  as  fear  and  serve  him  not.  It  comes  exactly  to  the 
point  at  which  we  commenced  this  discourse :  *  The  wick- 
ed is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness,  but  the  righteous  hath 
hope  in  his  death.'  But  Mr.  Balfour  tells  us  that  this  is  all 
a  parable >  and  that  very  little,  if  any  thing,  of  the  future  state 
of  men  can  be  gathered  from  it. 


LECTURE  IV.  si 

Mr.  B —  begins  his  remarks  upon  this  passage  of  scrip- 
ture bv  telling:  us  very  honestly  and  "  frankly,"  that  he  has 
before  him  a  very  difficult  task  in  making  it  appear,  that  here 
is  no  revelation  of  a  future  state  of  misery  ;  for  he  admits 
that  the  parable  must  in  its  natural  effect  produce  such  an 
impression ;  to  remove  which  impression  he  has  to  labour 
hard  and  long,  which  we  shall  see.    He  concedes  at  the  out- 
set thus,  M  It  is  frankly  admitted,  that  this  (parable)  looks 
"  very  plausible  in  establishing  a  place  of  future  misery." 
This  is  very  candid  and  fair,  not  only  for  what  he  admits, 
but  from  the  selection  of  terms,  he  says,  "  it  is  plausible  in 
establishing/^/;**?  misery  :"  this  is  not  only  candid,  but 
just ;  he  keeps  to  his  own  taken  ground,  and  if  he  would 
keep  himself  within  these  bounds  he  would  save  both  him- 
self and  us  from  a  great  deal  of  trouble,  himself  from  future, 
and  us  from  present  trouble.     But  there  is  no  holding  Mr. 
B —  to  any  such  point,  for  soon  after  the  commencement,  he 
turns  to  the  old  device  of  confounding  future  with  eternal, 
and  what  is  still  worse,  and  less  logical,  argues  that  Hades 
cannot  be  a  place  of  future  misery,  because  it  is  not  declar- 
ed to  be  a  place  of  eternal  misery.    Now  this  is  very  incon- 
clusive.   I  might  prove  that  it  is  not  a  state  of  future  misery, 
which  would  involve  the  proof  that  it  is  not  a  state  of  eter- 
nal misery  :  but  the  crossing  of  this  argument  is  a  mere 
sophism — Mr.  B —  arranges  his  objections  to  this  parable's 
being  considered  as  proof  of  a  state  of  misery  under  several 
heads,  he  says 

(45.)  **  1st.  Let  it  be  noticed,  that  the  rich  man  is  not  re- 
"  presented  as  in  Gehenna,  but  in  Hades.  It  is  contended  by 
"  Dr.  Campbell  and  others,  that  Gehenna,  not  Hades*  is  the 
"  place  of  endless  misery  for  the  wicked,  and  that  the  pun* 
"  ishment  of  Gehenna  does  not  take  place  till  after  the  re- 
"  surrection  of  the  dead  ;  yea,  it  is  contended,  that  Hades, 
"  the  place  in  which  the  rich  man  is  here  said  to  be,  is  to  be 
"  destroyed. — It  is  very  evident  then,  that  whoever  con- 
¥  tends  for  this  person's  being  actually  in  a  place  of  tor- 


g2  LECTURE  IV. 

11  ment,  must  allow  that  it  is  not  to  be  of  endless  duration. " 

I  break  in  here  upon  the  quotation  just  to  ask  why  Mr.  B— 
brings  in  Dr.  Campbell  here  with  his  view  of  Gehenna  ? 
Suppose  Dr.  C — had  thought  that  Edinburgh,  or  London, 
or  Boston  was  the  place  of  endless  misery  for  the  wicked, 
what  would  that  have  argued  upon  this  statement  of 
our  Lord  in  the  parable  before  us?  we  have  no  contest  in 
this  discussion  with  Dr.  C —  upon  Gehenna,  or  any  other 
place.  Hades,  the  future  state,  exhibits  this  sufferer  ;  let 
our  author  deny  this  in  a  straight  forward  way,  without 
calling  in  the  assistance  of  Dr.  Campbell.  This  the  Inquir- 
er does  not  do,  but  proceeds  to  argue  farther  under  the 
same  head ;  (45)  "  But  if  this  is  only  a  supposed  person,  I 
"  ask  those  who  may  differ  from  me,  to  prove  that  the  per- 
"  son  is  a  real  being.  If  they  advocate  the  torment  to  be  a  rc- 
"ality,  they  ought  first  to  prove,  the  person  tormented  in 
"  Hades  to  be  not  a  parabolical  person,  before  they  draw  the 
"conclusion  that  the  torment  is  not  a  parabolical  torment. 

II  The  first  must  be  proved,  before  the  last  can  be  admitted  ; 
u  for  a  person  must  exist  before  he  can  be  tormented  in  any 
"  place.  If  the  person  mentioned  is  a  real  being,  and  the 
14  torment  he  complains  of  a  reality,  and  not  a  fictitious  or 
a parabolical  representation,  we  have  a  right  to  demand  why 
•«  every  thing  in  this  account,  is  not  considered  a  narrative 
c<  of  facts,  and  not  a  parable  ?"  I  cannot  help  expressing  my 
surprise  here  at  Mr.  B — 's  "  demands" — surely  this  par- 
able must  exceedingly  embarass  him,  or  he  would  not  be 
so  lost  to  all  sense  of  propriety, — "  Demand"  of  me  to 
prove  an  admitted  fiction  to  be  real  history  !  And  where- 
fore this  "  demand  ?"  Why,  he  says,  I  must  prove  the  his- 
toric verity  of  the  rich  man  as  a  real  being,  in  opposition  to 
his  being  a  parabolic  person,  and  I  must  prove  the  locality  of 
Hades,  and  the  reality  of  torments  there,  in  opposition  to 
the  scene  being  a  fictitious  or  parabolical  representation,  or 
else  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the  future  invisible  state, 
Hades,  is  a  state  of  retribution,  a  state  of  rewards  and  pun- 


LECTURE  IV.  83 

ishments.  Our  Inquirer  deserves  some  reprehension  for 
making  this,  I  must  say,  preposterous  demand  ;  prepos- 
terous truly,  to  require  of  us  to  prove  that,  that  which  is 
taken  for  granted  to  be  a  fiction,  is  a  real  history,  "  a  narra- 
tive of  facts,  and  not  a  parable."  And  since  Mr.  B —  has 
made  this  "  demand"  with  so  much  confidence  and  so  im- 
peratively, and  requires  it  of  us  in  order  to  our  establishing 
the  ground  we  have  taken,  we  shall  show  our  author,  and 
this  audience  too,  that  it  is  much  less  difficult  for  us  to 
prove  this  representation  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  to 
be  a  real  history \  than  it  is  for  Mr.  B —  to  prove  it  only  a 
parable :  and  we  do  in  solemn  tone  call  upon  him  for  his 
proofs  in  favour  of  this  being  a  fiction :  and  here  also  we 
recal  ail  our  grants  heretofore  made  allowing  this  to  be  a  para- 
ble,  and  insist  upon  our  author's  proving  this  to  be  a  para- 
ble. Many  of  our  Lord's  discourses  are  introduced  as  par- 
ables, thus,  ■  He  put  forth  a  parable' — l  And  he  spake  a 
parable  unto  them' — '  Another  parable  put  he  forth' — *  Hear 
the  parable  of  the  sower,'  and  so  on,  very  frequently  ;  but 
does  he,  or  his  historian  say  or  intimate,  in  any  shape,  that 
the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  is  a  parable  ?  Is  it  said,  by  way 
of  introducing  it,  ■  Hear  this  parable — or  this  parable  spake 
he  to  them  V  Not  a  word  in  holy  writ  about  this  being  a 
parable.  But  Mr.  B —  has  to  prove  this  a  parable,  before 
he  asserts  again,  as  he  has  done  already,  with  so  much  con- 
fidence, that  punishment  in  Hades  occurs  but  once  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  that  only  in  a  parable.  It  will  be  in 
vain  for  him  to  quote  Campbell,  or  Doddridge,  or  Chap- 
man, or  any  other  uninspired  authority,  or,  that  we  have 
admitted  it,  as  almost  every  one  besides  has  done,  and  there- 
fore it  must  be  taken  for  granted.  No,  sirs,  we  will  not 
take  it  for  granted,  we  will  rather  deny  it,  and  that  too  in 
the  face  of  any  commentator  and  writer  under  heaven — in 
the  face  of  every  being  in  the  universe,  except  Jesus  Christ, 
and  when  he  informs  us  that  it  is  a  parable  a  mere  fiction^ 
and  that  altogether  it  was  not  designed  to  give  any  light  upon 


S±  LECTURE  IV. 

a  future  state,  then  we  bow :  but  as  the  letter  of  the  New 
Testament  now  stands  Mr.  B —  may  read  it  till  his  eyes 
grow  dim  with  age,  to  use  his  own  words  in  another  case, 
before  he  will  find,  that  punishment  in  Hades  is  all  a  parable, 
all  a  fiction. 

Many  more  of  our  author's  remarks  upon  this  parable, 
as  he  has  presumingly  called  it,  might  be  set  before  you  for 
examination,  but  it  would  be  of  little  account,  for  they  are 
most  of  them  of  apiece  with  those  already  quoted  ;  assump- 
tions, irrelevancies,  specimens  of  unbelief :  of  the  latter,  spe- 
cimens of  unbelief  I  shall  notice  only  one.  Mr.  B —  refuses 
to  admit  the  doctrine  contended  for,  as  taught  in  this  pas- 
sage of  holy  writ,  because  Jesus,  he  says,  has  only  declared 
it  once,  and  that  in  a  parable.  (54)  As  to  the  parable  we 
have  done  with  that ;  but  Jesus  has  said  it  only  once  !  and 
we  add  now  m  a  history  too,  a  history  which  he  alone  could 
unfold,  and  he  is  not  to  be  believed  ! — well,  then,  I  have 
done ;  it  will  be  in  vain  to  argue  with  a  man  out  of  the 
scriptures  when  he  denies  them.  This  procedure  of  Mr. 
B —  is  too  awful  for  reasoning ;  I  pray  the  Lord  to  give 
him  a  more  perfect  understanding  in  this  way.  Here  I  could 
almost  persuade  myself  to  arrest  the  discussion,  but  as  we 
are  pledged  to  proceed,  the  subject  shall  be  resumed  indue 
course.     Gehenna  punishment  will  be  our  next  topic. 

4  Moreover  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  me  saying, 
son  of  man  set  thy  face  toward  the  south,  and  drop  thy  word 
toward  the  south,  and  prophesy  against  the  forest  of  the 
south  field ;  and  say  to  the  forest  of  the  south,  Hear  the 
word  of  the  Lord  :  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  ;  Behold  I 
will  kindle  a  fire  in  thee,  and  it  shall  devour  every  green 
tree  in  thee,  and  every  dry  tree :  the  flaming  flame  shall  not 
be  quenched,  and  all  faces  from  the  south  to  the' north  shall 
be  burned  therein.  And  all  flesh  shall  see  that  I  the  Lord 
have  kindled  it :  it  shall  not  be  qui  nched.  Then  said  I, 
Ah  Lord  God !  they  say  of  me,  Doth  he  not  speak  para- 
bles V 


^IST'UBS  T< 


Punishment  in  a  Future  State  farther  considered. 


FEAR  NOT  THEM  WHICH  KILL  THE  BODY,  BUT  ARE  NOT  ABLE  TO 
KILL  THE  SOUL!  BUT  RATHER  FEAR  HIM  WHICH  IS  ABLE  TO 
DESTROY   BOTH   SOUL  AND   BODY  IN   HELL.   (TitVVOl.) MattfieiV  X.  28. 

This  satne  passage  is  recorded  by  Luke  thus. 

BE  NOT  AFRAID  OF  THEM  THAT  KILL  THE  BODY,  AND  AFTER  THAT, 
HAVE  NO  MORE  THAT  THEY  C\N  DO.  BUT  I  WILL  FOREWARN 
YOU  WHOM  YE  SHALL  FEAR  :  FEAR  HIM,  WHICH.  AFTER  HE  HATH 
KILLED,  HATH  POWER  TO  CAST  INTO  HELL  (TilWCL)  't  YEA,  I  SAY 
UNTO    YOU,    FEAR    HIM. Lllke  xil.  4,  5. 

In  the  discussion  of  any  important  subject,  great  care 
should  be  taken  in  selecting  words  and  phrases  the  most 
applicable  and  uni vocal.  The  great  care  required  here 
proves  the  difficulty  of  the  case  ;  and  this  difficulty  too,  will 
be  found  to  increase  as  the  subject  to  be  treated  approaches 
religion.  The  history  of  language  would  be  difficult  to 
trace ;  how  words  were  first  formed,  no  words,  now,  can 
distinctly  express  :  but  some  how  or  other,  they  have  de- 
rived a  kind  of  constitution  from  the  things  for  which  they 
stand.  The  word,  whether  uttered  by  the  human  voice,  or 
inscribed  by  the  hand,  presents  at  once,  to  the  mind  address- 
ed, the  very  thing  to  which  it  relates.  Thus  it  is,  more 
particularly,  as  it  regards  things — things  visible — things  of- 
fered to  the  senses  ;  but  not  so  as  it  regards  ideas — things 
of  state  and  condition  rather  than  things  of  place  and  of  ob- 
servation. Precision  and  distinctness  here  are  what  we  con- 
tend for  :  and  the  want  of  this,  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Balfour, 
is  a  circumstance  we  lament;  the  inconvenience  arising 
from  this  is  felt  more  and  more  the  farther  we  go  in  his 
book.  I  would  not  charge  our  author  with  disingenuous* 
ness,  nor  would  I  say  that  he  betrays  a  want  of  confidence 

12 


89  LECTURE  V. 

in  his  own  theory  ;  neither  would  I  say,  with  the  Reviewer 
in  the  Christian  Repository,  that  there  appears  "^studied 
silence'1  on  any  point  on  which  he  has  pledged  himself  to 
speak.     But  he  most  certainly  has  exposed  himself  to  re- 
flection on  this  head,  as  we  have  seen  and  endeavoured  to 
show  more  than  once  before.     Sheol  or  Hades,  translated 
Hell,  Mr.  B —  says  "  means  the  grave  or  state  of  the  dead" 
— *'  simply  the  state  of  the  dead."     Now  he  does  not  tell  us 
distinctly  what  he  means  by  the  single  term,  grave  ;  he  tells 
us  distinctly  enough  what  he  thinks  it  does  not  mean,  but 
what  it  does  mean  he  does  not  so  distinctly  tell  us  :  hence 
we  are  led  to  ask,  whether  by  grave  he  means  the  burying 
place  of  the  body,  or  the  state  of  the  departed  spirit  ?  for  he 
says,  "  the  grave  or  state  of  the  dead  :"  but  the  local  grave 
and  state  of  the  dead,  or  departed  persons,  is  very  diffi  rent. 
Our  author  certainly  does  very  often  speak  of  Sheol,  Hades « 
or  Grave  as  the  place  of  the  dead,  the  dead  body  ;  (and  we 
admit  that  there  is  an  application  of  these  terms  to  the  place 
of  the  dead)  and  also  Mr.  B —  speaks  of  this  place  for  the 
dead  in  argument  against  punishment  after  death  :  the  grave, 
he  says,  is  not  a  place  of  punishment — he  does  not  merely 
say,  that  the  grave,  as  a  term,  does  not  mean  misery  or  pun- 
ishment, but  that  it  is  not  a  place  or  condition  in  which  a 
man  can  be  punished ;  he  labours,  with  more  pains  than  is 
needful,  to  prove,  that  the  grave,  the  place  of  the  dead  body, 
is  not  a  condition  of  punishment,  because  we  can  see  that  it 
is  not  adapted  to  such  a  purpose.     But  then  he  blends  this 
grave,  the  place  of  the  mortal  flesh,  with  Hades,  the  state 
of  the  immortal  spirit,  "  the  grave  or  state  of  the  dead."  But 
Mr.  B — 's  grave,  and  state  of  the  dead  cannot  be  the  same 
thing.     He  seems  to  have  no  distinct  ideas  upon  the  separate 
character  of  place  and  state.     But  we  do  not  intend  to  have 
things  left  in  this  idle,  floating,  vacillating  way.  The  grave9 
the  place  of  the  dead  body,  is  a  part  of  this  visible  world ; 
the  state  of  the  departed  is  in  the  invisible  world ;  Hades,  is 
the  Jinseen,  future  condition  of  man. 


LECTURE  V.  »r 

In  coming  to  some  point^on  this  article,  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  brins:  out  into  full  view  our  author's  declared  ideas 
on  the  question  of  state  and  place.  Mr.  B —  speaks  thus — 
(395)  "  It  has  been  objected  to  my  views, — that  by  Gehen- 
"  na,  a  state  and  not  a  place  of  future  endless  punish- 
"  ment  is  intended,  and  that  1  have  dwelt  too  much  on  the  idea 
"  of  its  being  a  place.  In  reply  to  this  (objection)  we  oo- 
u  serve — 1st.  That  before  this  objection  is  urged  against  me, 
"  such  as  hold  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  ought  to 
"  give  up  speaking  of  it  as  a  place  of  punishment.  It  is  al- 
"  ways  represented  as  a  place,  in  writing,  in  preaching,  and 
"  in  conversation.  Let  the  writer  or  preacher  be  named, 
fct  who  does  not  speak  of  it  as  a  place  but  as  a  state.  Dr. 
c<  Campbell,  Edwards,  and  all  other  writers  that  I  have  ever 
44  seen  or  heard  of,  invariably  speak  of  it  as  a  place."  This 
quotation,  though  brief,  is  an  entire  and  complete  sentence, 
and  is  sufficient  to  show  us  two  or  three  things.  We  see 
first,  That  our  author  himself  has  no  distinct  ideas  on  the 
separate  qualities  of  state  and  place,  and  he  is  so  embarrass- 
ed with  the  anticipated  demand  for  distinction  here,  that  he 
would  persuade  us  that  we  have  no  distinct  ideas  on  the 
two  cases  ourselves.  But  this  only  shows  us  secondly,  his 
difficulty,  not  our's.  He  is  in  such  a  strait,  that,  in  order 
to  divert  our  attention  from  him,  in  his  turmoil,  he  points 
us  to  Gehenna,  to  Dr.  Campbell,  to  Edwards,  to  all  other 
writers  and  preachers  that  he  has  ever  seen  or  heard  of. 
Well,  we  look  to  these  authors  and  preachers,  and  find  them 
embarrassed  like  Mr.  B —  or  not  embarrassed,  no  matter 
which,  but  it  does  not  relieve  him  ;  he  is  embarrassed  still, 
and  so  he  prepares  another  way  of  escape.  He  says,  that 
"  before  this  objection  is  urged  against  (him,)  such  as  hold 
"  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  misery,  ought  to  give  up  speak- 
"  ing  of  it  as  a  place  of  punishment."  But  we  ask  why 
Mr.  B —  makes  this  demand  upon  those  who  hold  to  end- 
less punishment,  and  not  upon  those  who  hold  with  future 
punishment?  for  they  both  must  give  it  up  if  either  does  : 


88  LECTURE  V. 

and  suppose  they  both  agree  to  give  it  up,  or  declare  that 
they  never  contended  for  this  locality  of  punishment,  will 
our  Inquirer  give  it  up  ?  Observe,  we  are  not  begging  of 
Mr.  B —  we  do  not  ask  him  to  give  it  up  to  help  us  out  of 
a  difficulty,  and  then  promise,  in  return,  to  give  it  up  our- 
selves to  relieve  him ;  no ;  we  do  not  hold  by  it,  we  never 
did,  and  we  intend  to  beat  him  off  it  too,  or,  if  he  will  hold 
on,  we  will  endeavour  to  show  him  that  it  is  an  argument 
no  stronger  than  a  spider's  web.  We  see  thirdly,  from  this 
quotation,  that  Mr.  B —  cannot  manage  his  "  Inquiry"  un- 
less he  be  permitted  to  localize  and  materialize  spiritual 
things.  Sheol  means  the  grave :  now  the  grave  is  not  a 
place  of  endless  misery,  therefore  there  is  no  future  state  of 
misery  :  thus  argues  Mr.  B —  and  so  with  Hades.  We 
shall  have  Gehenna  before  us  presently ;  it  has  already  ap- 
peared, and  what  is  the  argument  ?  Why,  Gehenna  can  be 
localized,  nay  it  is  a  place,  and  a  place  of  suffering  too  ;  but 
only  of  temporal  suffering,  suffering  in  the  body  ;  therefore 
there  can  be  no  state  of  suffering  in  any  future  world.  Thus 
argues  the  rt  Inquiry,"  but  it  is  without  conclusion. 

Mr.  B —  however  is  so  set  upon  having  a  local  Hell,  if 
any,  that  he  will  know  why  and  wherefore  we  will  not  have 
it  so.  He  inquires  thus.  (396)  "  We  should  feel  oblig- 
ed to  the  persons,  who  wish  to  abandon  the  word  place, 
41  to  describe  to  us  what  they  mean  by  this  state,  and  the 
11  endless  (future)  punishment  in  this  state,  without  any 
11  idea  of  place.  We  hope  they  will  be  kind  enough  to  in- 
11  form  us  also,  why  they  wish  to  shift  their  ground  from 
"place  to  state,  and  whether  this  is  coming  nearer  to  the 
11  scripture  mode  of  speaking  of  their  doctrine  ;  or,  is  it  with 
"  a  view  to  perplex  the  subject,  andwave  the  argument  ur g- 
"  ed  against  it  ?  Men  who  would  lay  aside  the  good  old 
"  way  of  speaking  of  Hell  must  have  some  reasons  for  do- 
"  incr  this  :  we  wish  to  know  them."  You  still  see  that 
this  idea  of  state,  in  distinction  from  place,  is  exceedingly 
embarrassing,  nay,  offensive  to  our  author,  he  hardly  treats 


LECTURE  V,  89 

us  with  respect,  he  demands  an  explanation  in  a  taunting 
way.  However  we  will  give  him,  to  the  best  of  our  abili- 
ty, a  courteous  answer.  We  reply,  1st.  That  to  speak  of 
the  future  world  as  a  state  is  more  congenial  with  the 
subject  than  to  represent  ?nan's  spiritual  existence  and  con- 
dition by  a  place.  And  2d.  It  is  coming  nearer  to  the 
scripture  mode  of  speaking  to  the  doctrine.  Sheol  is  not  re- 
presented in  scripture  so  much  the  place  as  the  state  of  the 
departed.  Hades,  the  Greek  rendering  of  Sheol,  is  the  in- 
visible state:  if  it  were  a  place  merely  we  should  see  it,  but 
it  is  uniformly  represented  as  the  state  concealed  from  mor- 
tal eye.  3d.  Instead  of  perplexing  the  subject,  and  evad- 
ing the  argument,  as  Mr.  B —  tauntingly  insinuates  we 
would  do,  we  resort  to  these  terms  in  contradistinction  ex- 
pressly to  meet  the  argument,  and  to  meet  it  fairly  without 
perplexing  it  as  Mr.  B —  himself  is  so  manifestly  doing 
continually,  and  particularly  now  in  shifting  and  evading 
this  very  logical  definition.  And  we  do  now,  most  courte- 
ously, confer  the  obligation  on  Mr.  B —  he  so  triumphantly 
demands,  by  describing  to  him  what  we  mean  by  this 
state,  and  the  punishment  in  this  state,  apart  from  the 
idea  of  place.  By  place  then  we  mean  all  that  space  which 
is  capable  of  receiving  material  objects,  objects  of  sense  : 
a  space  extending  from  the  earth's  centre  to  its  surface  and 
as  far  beyond  as  the  eye  can  reach  assisted  or  unassisted  ; 
beyond  this  is  to  us  the  unknown  but  not  the  invisible  world ; 
for  though  it  be  out  of  our  sphere  of  vision,  it  may  be  with- 
in the  view  of  creatures  placed  by  the  Great  Creator  for  ob- 
servation and  discovery  there.  We  do  not  apply  state  to 
this  wide  range  of  materiality,  for  though  the  creatures  so 
existing  may  be  in  a  great  variety  of  condition  and  state 
too,  yet  Mr.  B —  would  himself,  as  we  do,  institute  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  mere  locality  of  these  creatures,  and 
their  peculiar  qualities  and  conditions.  I  am  sorry  to  deal 
in  such  truisms,  and  so  trifle  with  this  audience  ;  but  Mr. 
B-^»  demands  it,  we  must  therefore  proceed  to  illustrate. 


90  LECTURE  V. 

And  if  he  will  attend  us,  we  will  resort  to  a  scene,  in  which 
we  have  attended  him  once  before,  particularly  in  our  form- 
er lecture.  The  scene  is  in  the  Saviour's  description  of 
the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus.  4  And  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
beggar  died  ;'  it  is  not  said  that  he  was  buried,  he  might 
have  died  at  the  Rich  Man's  gate ;  be  that  as  it  may,  there 
is  no  more  place  found  for  him  after  the  disposal  of  his 
poor,  diseased  and  woe-worn  carcase.  *  He  is  carried  by 
angels  to  Abraham's  bosom  ;'  here  state  commences  in  our 
view  of  him;  nothing  local in  this  part  of  the  scene  ;  the 
place,  really  occupied  by  Abraham's  body,  was  in  the  cave 
of  Machpela,  in  the  field  of  Ephron,  but  the  society  of 
Abraham  was  in  the  future  invisible  state.  So  the  Rich 
Man,  he  died  and  was  buried,  his  body  was  placed  in  the 
tomb,  and  there  place  ends  with  him,  the  next  we  hear  of 
him  is,  ■  In  Hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  being  in  torments'— 
in  Hades.  What  place  was  this  ?  We  ask  our  Inquirer, 
does  he  know  the  place  thereof?  It  was  not  in  Sheol  or 
Hades,  meaning  literally  the  burying  place  or  tomb,  but  in 
Hades — the  invisible  place :  a  place  which  no  mortal  eye 
hath  seen  or  can  see  resolves  itself  into  state.  State  so  far 
as  it  applies  to  the  tomb,  is  negative  ;  the  body  of  the  rich 
man  was  in  a  state  of  insensibility  in  the  tomb,  but  his 
spiritual  part  is  in  a  positive  state  in  Hades,  ■  in  tor- 
ments.' Lazarus  was  in  a  state  of  happiness,  and  the  other 
in  a  state  of  misery.  But  after  all  this  attempt,  on  our  part, 
to  be  clear  and  expressive  on  this  subject,  we  are  aware  of 
Mr.  B — 's  objection  ;  we  have  it  in  various  forms,  it  a- 
mounts  to  this.  ■  If  you  would  have  the  future  condition  of 
men  to  be  in  state  rather  tlian  in  place,  why  do  you  not  always 
use  a  langnage  suited  to  the  description  of  a  state  rather  than 
to  that  of  a  place ;'  Such  an  objection  is  unreasonable. 
That  which  is  purely  spiritual  or  mental  cannot  be  describ- 
ed in  language  spiritual  or  mental,  the  human  faculty  of 
speech  cannot  frame  such  words  :  things  spiritual  must  be 
described  by  things  natural  and  visible ;  an  appeal  must  be 

P 


LECTURE  V.  91 

made  to  the  senses,  or  thoughts  cannot  be  communicated. 
The  Blessed  Jesus,  the  Wisdom  of  God,  who  came  down 
from  heaven,  who  only  knew  God,  could  not  communicate 
one  spiritual  thought  or  idea  without  a  language  figured 
from  sensible  objects  in  this  material  world :  hence  his  par- 
ables and  the  selection  of  apt  histories  and  customs  :  hence 
the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  and  the   view  he  gives  us  of 
these  two  men  in  both  worlds,  in  both  states,  is  in  language 
descriptive  of  sensible  things  and  visible  objects.     I   won- 
der therefore  Mr.  B —  should  have  ventured  a  course  of  ar- 
guing on  state  and  place  in  the  way  he  has  done  ;  it  is 
a  kind  of  reasoning  which  can  have  no   weight,  but  with 
persons,  who  through  ignorance,  weakness  or  prejudice,  are 
prepared  to  receive  any  thing.     In  reviewing  Mr.   B — 's 
reasonings  on  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  with  those  on 
state  and  place  I  have  at  times  been  almost  persuaded  to  be- 
lieve him  not  sincere ;  I  have  really  almost  thought  that  he 
was  laying  a  snare  for  his  readers  and  only  intended  to 
show  the  credulity  of  the  human  mind  in  proposing  the 
most  palpable  sophisms  for  anti-retributionists  to  receive, 
and  thereby  expose  their  system  to  defeat  and  contempt. 
But  still  I  cannot  settle  down  upon  a  conviction  that  such 
a  man  as  our  author  would  write  450  pages,  and  intersperse 
them  with  so  much  seriousness,  merely  to  satirize  the  weak 
or  the  wicked.     We  are  averse  to  this  conviction  also,  as 
we  have  much  more  of  the  same  argumentation  to  review 
in  the  next  article  to  be  considered,  namely,  Gehenna 

f  UNISHMENT. 

Here,  then,  we  premise  that,  as  we  enter  upon  an  exam- 
ination of  this  phrase,  Gehenna,  its  origin,  meaning,  and  ap- 
plication, we  do  so  under  very  different  impressions  and 
prejudices  from  those  with  which  Mr.  Balfour  enters  upon 
its  examination ;  hence  the  results  are  likely  to  be  dissimi- 
lar. He  thinks  that  in  the  constitution  of  the  universe  there 
is  no  place  or  state  of  punishment  for  the  wicked  ;  that  no- 
thing of  the  kind  can  be  proved  from  any  phraseology  in 


92  LECTURE  V. 

the  Old  Testament ;  in  Sheol  or  Hades  there  is  no  allusion 
to  suffering  or  punishment.  This  idea  he  brings  with  him 
into  the  New  Testament ;  Hades  is  not  a  place  of  suffering, 
the  wicked  are  not  punished  here ;  and  so  Gehenna  must 
not  be  allowed  to  have  any  allusion  to  suffering  in  a  future 
world.  Our  prejudicies  are  opposed  to  these  conclusions: 
we  think  that  in  Sheol  or  Hades,  that  is,  in  the  future  spirit- 
ual world,  men  are  happy  or  miserable ;  this  we  think  is 
the  correct  doctrine  of  scripture  ;  and  so  we  shall  be  pre- 
disposed to  embark  the  phrase  Gehenna  in  favour  of  what 
we  conceive  so  palpable  a  doctrine.  Nevertheless  I  hope 
we  shall  be  able  to  look  at  the  truth  simply  as  it  presents  it- 
self to  our  view,  without  scandalizing  its  authority,  or  so- 
phisticating upon  its  evidence.  We  shall  now  make  our 
way  to  the  meaning  and  application  of  Gehenna  by  the 
light  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

Gehenna  is  a  term  used  in  the  New  Testament,  it  ap- 
pears in  our  Lord's  sermon  on  the  mount ;    and  here  it 
occurs  three  times  {Matth.  v.  22,  29,   30.)     I  will  recite 
the  passages  ;    *  Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said  by  them  of 
old  time,  Thou  shalt  not  kill,  and  whosoever  shall  kill,  shall 
be  in  danger  of  the  judgment :    but  I  say  unto  you,   that 
whosoever  is  angry  with  his  brother  without  a  cause  shall 
be  in  danger  of  the  judgment ;  and  whosoever  shall  say  to 
his  brother,  Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council :  but 
whosoever  shall  say,  thou  fool,  shall  be  in  danger  of  (Ge- 
henna) hell- fire.     If  thy  right  eye  offend  thee,  pluck  it  out, 
and  cast  it  from  thee :  for  it  is  profitable  for  thee  that  one 
of  thy  members  should  perish,  and  not  thy  whole   body 
should  be  cast  into  (Gehenna)  hell.     And  if  thy  right  hand 
offend  thee,  cut  it  off,  and  cast  it  from  thee  ;  for  it  is  profit- 
able for  thee  that  one   of  thy  members  should  perish,  and 
not  that  thy  whole  body  should  be  cast  into  (Gehenna)  hell.' 
On  the  introduction  of  this  phrase  there  are  several  circum- 
stances to  be  considered ;  and,  First.     It  is  adopted  by  the 
Saviour^at  a  very  early  period  of  his  ministry,  and  used 


LECTURE  V.  9S 

three  times  in  one  discourse,  a  discourse  too,  in  which  he  is 
giving  a  grand    specimen  of  his  system  of  teaching  and 
doctrine.      How  he  came  by  the  word  may  be  a  matter 
of  inquiry,    but    that  he  understood  it,  and  used  it   law- 
fully, and  made  the  best  use  of  it  also,   must  be  admit- 
ted :  we  can  allow  of  no  disputations  or  doubtings  here. 
Second.     The  phrase  was  new,  at  least  as  to  its  divine  au- 
thority, it  had  never  been  on  the  lip  of  any  inspired  teach- 
er of  mankind  before.     Whether  it  had  ever  appeared  in 
the  Apocryphal  writings,  or  in  the  Targums,  is  a  matter 
of  no  weight,  for  it  is  impossible  to  fix  the  date  of  any 
of  these  so  as  to  furnish  our  Lord  with  the  word,  or  the 
use  of  it,  at  the  time  of  his  ministry.      We  have  no  good 
evidence  of  its  being  used  in  divine  teaching    till    Jesus 
himself  used  it.      It    is  difficult  to  say  what  tongue  our 
Lord  used  in  his  ministry  :     pure   Hebrew    was  not  the 
popular  language  :     the  Chaldee,  not   the  Hebrew,  or   a 
mixture,  a  corruption  of  both,  perhaps  of  three,  Hebrew, 
Chaldee  and  Svriac,  was  the  common  dialect.      Our  Sa- 
viour  was  a  teacher  of  people  made  up  of  all  classes,  and 
we  find  that  very  generally  they  understood  him  ;   whence 
I  conclude  he    spoke    the    common,    popular    language. 
But  whatever  was  the    language    spoken    byr    our    Lord, 
we  have  no  record  of  any  of  his  sayings  and  discourses 
in  the  original :  he  never  wrote  any  thing  himself,  except 
that  he,  on  a  particular  occasion,  stooped  down  and  wrote 
on  the  ground.     His  biographers  and  recorders  wrote  the 
history  of  him  in  Greek,  or  something    like    it,    not,    it 
seems,  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldee  :    yet  as  we  are  taught  to 
receive  the  gospel  as  divine  testimony,  we  are  bound  to 
admit  that  they  contain  a  faithful  transcript    of  all  *  that 
Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  to  teach.'    Gehenna,  as  a 
word,  belongs  to  no  one  language  ;    it    is    not    a  Greek 
term,    it  is  a  phrase,  introduced  to  us  in  Greek  charac- 
ters, Tewra,  but  it  is  a  compounded  word,  rather  a  phrase 
mgde  up  of  two  Hebrew  words  OUTl  NU  ge  hinnom,  the 

13 


»4  LECTURE  V. 

valley  of  Hinnom,  of  which  you  may  read  in  many  parts  of 
the  OKI  Testament.      The  valley  of  Hinnom,  or,  as  it  is 
sometimes  called,  the  valley  of  the  son  of  Hinnom,  was  a 
real  place  locally  described,  with  a  history  of   the   events 
which  transpired  therein.     This  valley  was  a  scene  of  sin  ; 
here  the  apostatizing  Israelites  celebrated  idolatrous  rites, 
and  made  their  sons  and  daughters  pass  through  the  fire  to 
Moloch.     There  were  also  many  other  places  where  the 
children  of  Israel  practised  their  iniquities,  but  this  was  the 
great  rendezvous  of  idolatry  ;  it  was  hard  by  Jerusalem,  so 
that  it  became  the  capitol  of  abomination  :    its  scenes  of 
wickedness  rendered  it  proverbial,  and  its  scenes  of  suffer- 
ing rendered  it  a  fit  emblem  of  misery.     Upon  its  history 
Jeremiah  founds  his  prophecy  against  the  nation  of  Israel : 
he  predicts  that,  as  the  valley  of  Hinnom  had  been  literally 
the  place  of  such    unparalleled  wickedness,  so  it   should 
also  become  literally  the  place  of  unparalleled  suffering; 
and  as  fire,    and  blood,  and  slaughter  had  marked   their 
crimes,  so  by  lire  and  sword  should  they    be  consumed 
in  the  day  of  the  Lord's  anger.     Thus  runs  the  history   of 
the  valley  of  Hinmon,   and  the  prophecy   upon  it.     Other 
prophets  beside  Jeremiah  refer  to  these  same  abominations, 
and  foretel  the  same  indignation  from  the  Lord.     But  in  all 
these  details  of  history  with  the    prophesyings  thereon,  we 
perceive  little  of  man  but  in  his  national  and  political  char- 
acter  ;  here  are  sins,  but  they  are  national  sins — sins  of  the 
whole  house  of  Israel ;  here  are  threatenings  and  prophecies 
of  destruction,  but  it  is  the  destruction  of  a  nation.     *  Then 
will  I  cause  to  cease  from  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  from  the 
streets  of  Jerusalem,  the  voice  of  mirth,  and  the  voice  of 
gladness,  the  voice  of  the  bridegroom,  and  the  voice  of  the 
bride:   for  the  land  shall  be  desolate.'     In  God's 
dealings  with  the  Jews  by  the  old  dispensation,  there  is  little 
of  that  blessedness,  suited  to  man's  spiritual  character,  held 
out  in  distinct  doctrine  and  promise  ;    so  also  there  was  as 
little   of  threatening ;   the  promise  of  a  future  happiness, 


EECTURK  V.  93 

and  the  threatening  of  a  future  punishment  were  not  so 
fchafacterisric  of  the  Old  Testament  as  we  shall  see  it  is  of 
the  New.  Jesus  opens  his  commission  ana  proves  his  au- 
thority by  addressing  men  as  individual  moral  agents,  as 
accountable  to  God  who  searches  the  heart  and  who  truth 
the  reins  of  the  children  of  men.  Even  Jews,  to  whom  he 
chiefly  addresses  himself,  are  brought  to  his  judgment-seat 
as  men  who  have  souls  to  save  or  to  lose.  What  was  histo- 
ry or  prediction  in  the  mouths  of  the  old  prophets,  is  sym- 
bol and  emblem  in  his.  Children  of  Abraham  are  emblem- 
atical of  believers  in  Christ.  The  kingdom  of  David  is  em- 
blematical of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  a  kingdom  not  of  this 
world.  The  apostacy  and  idolatry  of  Israel  are  symbolical 
of  a  worldly  mind,  and  their  sufferings,  as  a  nation  in  Hin- 
nom,  symbolical  of  the  sufferings  of  sinners  in  a  future 
state  :  so  Gehenna  is  a  phrase  by  which  Jesus  asserts  the 
future  condition  of  a  sinner,  'body  ai,d  soul'  in  a  future, 
moral  state  of  retribution  :  and  this  phrase  is  by  our  Lord 
used  for  the  first  time  as  emblematical  of  a  moral  state  of 
future  retribution.  I  have  only  to  add  in  the  Third  place, 
that  Jesus  delivered  this  discourse,  containing  this  appli- 
cation of  Gehenna,  to  the  multitude  ;  his  disciples  were 
part  of  his  audience,  but  the  whole  multitude  were  address- 
ed, and  they  felt  his  address  too,  for  they  '  were  astonished 
at  his  doctrine  ;  for  he  taught  them  as  one  having  au- 
thority, and  not  as  the  sci  ibes.'  The  subjects  on  which 
he  addressed  the  people  were  of  common  interest,  his  ap- 
peals to  the  law,  and  to  the  consciences  of  his  hearers  were 
solemn  and  powerful ;  he  set  before  them  life  and  death — 
Heaven  for  such  as  do  the  will  of  his  Father,  and  Gehen- 
na for  all  those  that  work  iniquity. 

Gehenna  is  used  by  bur  Divine  Teacher  in  some  other 
forms  of  speech,  as,  soul  and  body  destroyed  in  Gehenna — 
Gehenna  fire — rather  the  Gehenna  of  fire — Gehenna  where 
the  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  fne  is  not  quenched — ;  Child  of 
Gehenna,'  and  '  damnation  of  Gehenna.'     The  three  former 


98  LECTURE  V. 

of  these  modes  of  expression  are  recorded  by  the  several 
evangelists  somewhat  differently  ;  not  a  difference  that 
amounts  to  a  contradiction,  but  one  is  more  full  and  dis- 
tinct than  the  other ;  this  is  a  very  common  and  a  very 
natural  case.  In  the  first  of  these  three  cases  Luke  speaks 
only  of  the  body  being  killed,  and  then  alludes  to  what  comes 
after  death  in  Gehenna :  But  Matthew  speaks  of  soul  and 
body  being  destroyed  in  Gehenna:  the  same  idea  more 
strongly  and  distinctly  worded.  This,  like  the  sermon  on 
the  mount,  is  a  moral  discourse  addressed  to  the  disciples 
first  of  all,  the  multitude  in  a  great  crowd  standing  around  : 
the  retribution  threatened  is  a  moral  one,  soul  and  body  in  a 
future  state  are  obnoxious  to  punishment  :  Gehenna,  in 
this  particular,  is  a  phrase  adapted  to  a  moral  case.  Mark 
records  the  passage  in  another  discourse  containing  a  view 
oiGehenna  with  the  never  dying  worm,  and  the  unquenchable 
fire  :  this  discourse  is  of  the  same  character  as  the  former  ; 
a  moral  future  retribution  is  the  subject,  and  Gehenna  is 
the  symbolic  phrase.  Child  of  Gehenna.  This  is  a  strong 
draft  of  moral  character,  child  of  Hell,  similar  to  child  of 
wrath,  equally  symbolical  with  son  of  perdition,  or  Boaner- 
ges, sons  of  thunder*  I  can  make  nothing  but  a  moral  case 
of  this,  and  shall  therefore  consider  it  as  giving  a  moral 
complexion  to  Gehenna.  Damnation  of  Gehenna,  or  the 
condemnation  of  Gehenna,  more  properly  rendered  the 
judgment  of  Gehenna,  -rn  Kpivtw  t>7c  ytwvc  In  this  passage 
Christ  upbraids  the  Pharisees  and  rulers  of  the  people  with 
their  apostacy,  hypocrisy,  and  abuse  of  office  ;  and  con- 
signs them  to  the  judgment  awarded  them  in  Gehenna,  a 
punishment  suited  to  their  moral  character,  a  reward  in 
righteousness  in  that  state,  wherein  *  body  and  soul'  are 
consigned  to  destruction,  loss  of  happiness,  not  anni- 
hilation. 

From  this  view  of  these  passages,  and  we  think  the  view 
we  have  taken  of  them  is  in  the  light  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  we 
gather  the  following  particulars.     1st.  That  Gehenna  is  a 


LECTURE  V.  97 

phrase  expressive  of  misery  or  punishment.  2d.  That  rt 
is  used  by  our  Lord  ;  whether  selected  by  him  or  not,  he 
is  the  first  to  use  it  emblematically.  It  is  compounded  of 
The  valley  ofllinnom  a  place  of  note  for  crime,  and  predicted 
as  a  state  of  punishment  for  the  Jews,  and  so  is  used  by  our 
Saviour  as  an  emblem  of  future  punishment  to  the  wicked, 
soul  and  body.  But  here  Mr.  B —  is  at  issue  with  us  ;  he 
denies  much  of  what  we  think  we  have  seen  in  scripture, 
and  proved  by  it. 

1st.  Mr.  B —  declares,  over  and  over  again,  that  the  Old 
Testament  writers  knew  nothing  about  future  punishment, 
and  that  if  the  Jews  had  any  ideas  of  it  they  learnt  it  from 
the  heathen,  and  also  that  whatever  was  written  on  this  sub- 
ject was  in  the  Apocryphal  ages.  Whether  the  Jews  knew 
any  thing  of  a  future  retribution  we  shall  leave  you  to 
judge,  after  the  evidence  we  have  set  before  you  has  been 
well  weighed.  This  evidence  also  will  enable  you  to  judge 
whether  what  the  Jews  had  learnt  of  this  doctrine  in  our 
Saviour's  time  was  from  their  own  scriptures,  or  from  the 
heathen.  And  this  evidence  goes  to  show  us  still  farther, 
that  what  the  Apocryphal  authors  wrote  about  punishment 
in  a  future  state  was  from  the  Old  Testament  view  of  Sheol 
or  Hades,  not  Gehenna  ;  for  Gehenna  is  a  phrase  that  never 
occurs  in  any  of  these  books.  The  Targums,  if  they  were 
extant  when  Jesus  taught  the  people,  showed  that  Gehenna 
was  an  emblem  of  future  punishment ;  and  this  very  senti- 
ment Jesus  adopted  and  confirmed  in  his  doctrine ;  or  if 
these  Targums  were  not  known  at  that  time,  then  the  intro- 
duction of  the  Gehenna  symbol  is  with  our  Lord,  and  the 
doctrine  so  taught  is  divine. 

2d.  What  our  Inquirer  says  upon  the  article  of  Gehenna 
being  an  emblem  of  punishment  must  be  considered — Mr. 
B —  quotes  the  whole  of  Jeremiah,  xix.  chap,  and  the  latter 
part  of  the  vii.  chap,  from  the  29th  verse,  which  I  need  not 
transcribe ;  you  can  consult  these  passages  in  your  retire- 
ment.    After  reciting  these  our  author  says,   (110)  "No 


OS  LECTURE  V. 


one  can  doubt,  after  reading  these  two  quotations,  that  the 
Old  Testament  writers  made  the  valley  of  Hinnom  or  to- 
11  phet,  an  emblem  of  something.  It  is  our  duty  candidly 
"  and  carefully  to  consider  what  that  thing  is.  1st.  Then, 
"  it  is  evident,  that  they  made  tophet  an  emblem  of  punish- 
"merit,  and  of  future  punishment,  but  not  of  future  eternal 
u  punishment  in  another  state  of  existence.  This  (he  adds 
"  gratuitously)  all  will  admit  without  hesitation.  2d.  It  is  e- 
"  qually  evident  that  they  made  it  an  emblem  of  future  tem- 
"  poral  punishment  to  the  Jews  as  a  nation.  It  is  a  pun- 
"  ishment  of  a  temporal  nature,  in  this  world.  It  is  a  pre- 
"  diction  of  miseries  to  be  endured  by  the  Jews  for  their 
"sins. — In  this  prediction  they  are  reminded  of  the  crimes 
"  they  had  committed  against  the  Lord,  in  the  valley  of 
"  Hinnom,  and  it  is  used  by  the  spirit  of  God,  as  an  em- 
"blemofthe  punishment  he  was  to  inflict  upon  them." 
Let  us  stay  your  attention  here  a  little,  while  we  examine 
the  character  of  Mr.  B — 's  emblem.  He  says  that  Hin- 
nom or  Tophet  was  used  by  the  prophet  as  an  emblem  of 
future  temporal  punishment  to  the  Jews  as  a  nation. 

We  must  have  some  fixed  ideas  upon  the  character  of 
emblem :  unless  we  come  to  some  certainty  on  this  point 
our  argumentation  will  be  only  beating  the  air.  Our  ques- 
tion then  is,  what  is  an  emblem  ?  I  do  not  wish  to  be  nice 
or  fastidious  in  seeking  a  reply  ;  the  scriptures  will  perhaps 
be  a  safe  guide  in  the  search  ;  the  term  however  is  not  to  be 
found  in  scripture,  neither  type  nor  symbol  ;  but  we  have 
each  and  all  of  these  in  the  scripture,  though  not  so  denom- 
inated. An  emblem,  I  apprehend,  is  one  thing  naturally  re- 
presenting another  thing  morally.  Crabb  in  his  Synonymesy 
says,  4  The  type  is  that  species  of  emblem  by  which  one 
object  is  made  to  represent  another  mystically  :'  the  ex- 
amples, I  conceive,  are  near  us  ;  the  olive  branch  brought 
by  the  dove  to  Noah  furnishes  two,  the  olive  branch  peace  ; 
the  dove  innocence :  or  the  millstone  cast  by  the  angel  into 
the  sea,  an  emblem  of  the  fall  of  Babylon  :    or  still  nearer, 


LECTURE  V.  99 

'  the  potter's  earthen  bottle.'  Thus  spake  the  Lord  to  Jere- 
miah, *  Go  get  a  potter's  earthen  bottle,  and  take  of  the  an- 
cients of  the  people,  and  of  the  ancients  of  the  priests,  and 
go  forth  into  the  valley   of  the  son  of  Hinnom — and  say, 
Hear  ye  the  word  of  the  Lord' — Here  the  prophet  describes 
the  iniquities  committed  by  Israel  in  this  valley,  and  threat- 
ens them   with  a  dreadful  overthrow.     '  Then  shalt  thou 
break  the  bottle  in  the  sight  of  the  men  that  go  with  thee  ; 
and  shalt  say  unto  them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts  : 
Even  so  will  I  break  this  people,  and  this  city  as  one  break- 
eth  a  potter's  vessel  that  cannot  be  made  whole  again.'  This, 
I  apprehend,  to  be  a  fair  example  of  an  emblem,  and  what 
renders  it  peculiarly  applicable  at  present  is,  it  is  an  emblem 
of  the  punishment  to  be  inflicted  on  the  Jewish  nation  ;  but 
then  it  is  very  unfortunate  for  Mr.  B  — 's  argument,  Hinnom 
is  not  the  emblemy  but  the  earthen  bottle  ;    he  says,   Tophet 
or  Hninom  is  made  an  emblem  of  future  temporal  punish- 
ment to  the  Jews  as  a  nation.     Who  made  this  an  emblem  ? 
he  says  the  Old  Testament  writers  did.     But  we  assert  they 
did  not,  they  made  the  breaking  of  the  potter's  vessel  an 
emblem  of  this,  and  not  the  valley  of  Hinnom.  How  strange  ! 
a  man  of  Mr.  B — 's  sagacity  should  not  see  this.     But  he 
is  so  confident  that  he  says  "  That  all  will  admit  this  with- 
out any  hesitation."    As  he  is  so  confident  we  will  show 
him  the  absurdity  of  his  emblem.     In  an  emblem  one  thing 
is  made  to  represent  another,  as  the  breaking  of  a   potter's 
vessel  is  made  to  represent  the  breaking  up  of  the  Jewish 
nation  ;  but  Mr.  B —  makes  Hinnom  an   emblem  of  Hin- 
nom, or  he  makes  the  miseries  which  this  valley  had  exhib- 
ited an  emblem  of  that  misery  yet  to  be  exhibited  in  the 
same  place  :  now  this  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  either  lo- 
gical or  rhetorical ;  neither  is  it  the  method  of  the  sacred 
writers  ;  it  is  not  so  in  the  very  case  before  us.     Hinnom  is 
not  the  emblem  here,  but  the  '•earthen  vessel'      However 
Mr.  B —  seems  to  have  some  just  idea  of  Hinnom  after  all, 
he  says  that  Hinnom  is  an  emblem  of  something — it  is}  he 


100  LECTURE  V. 

adds,  an  emblem  of  punishment,  and  we  have  no  doubt  but 
it  is  an  emblem  of  future  punishment  to  the  wicked  in  the 
world  to  come  :  as  God  threatened  the  Jews  with  a  grievous 
overthrow  in  the  valley  of  slaughter,  or  Hinnom ;    so,  that 
grievous  overthrow  becomes  a  fit  emblem,  or  figure,  by  which 
to  represent  the  indignation  God  would  pour  out  upon  the 
guilty  in  a  future  state,  and  this  is  the  use  to  which  our  Saviour 
applies  the  valley  of  Hinnom  under  the  phrase  Gehenna,  a 
state  of  punishment  for  *  soul  and  body'  in  the  future  world. 
There  is  another  thing ;  the  quotation  from  Jeremiah,  as  our 
author  says,  contains  a  prediction  that  the  valley  of  Hin- 
nom should  be  to  the  Jews,  the  valley  of  slaughter  ;  observe 
this  is  a  prediction  rather  than  an  emblem  ;  the  earthen  ves- 
sel is  the  emblem  and  Hinnom  is  the  subject  of  prediction,  Hin- 
nom had  been  literally  the  seat  of  wickedness  in  the  slaugh- 
ter of  the  innocent,  and  so  it  is  predicted  that  the  same 
place  shall  be  literally  the  seat  and  scene  of  punishment  to  the 
guilty  ;  this  punishment  to  the  guilty  in  Hinnom  is  the  em- 
blem, and  so  our  Divine  Lord  uses  it  in  his  awful  denun- 
ciations on  Gehenna  punishment,  the  condemnation  of  Ge- 
henna— Child  of  Gehenna — Gehenna  fire — Soul  and  body 
destroyed  in  Gehenna;  so  Hinnom  becomes  the  emblem,  and 
Gehenna  the  moral. 

If  what  we  have  offered  on  Hinnom  guilt  and  punishment 
be  satisfactory,  then  we  need  not  take  up  your  time  in  go- 
ing over  all  Mr.  B — 's  reasons  on  Gehenna  ;  for  if  his  prin- 
ciple be  false  his  deductions  must  be  so :  that  his  position  of 
the  emblem  is  unsafe  is  pretty  clear,  and  equally  clear  the 
position  we  have  taken,  namely,  that  Gehenna  punishment 
literally  is  a  figure  of  future  punishment  morally.  But  it 
will  be  well,  before  we  quite  dismiss  this  article,  to  show  you 
some  of  the  difficulty  into  which  Mr.  B— -  has  brought  him- 
self by  assuming  this  position,  and  the  advantage  we  gain 
therebv. 

The  position  he  has  assumed  is  this,  That  Gehenna  pun- 
ishment is  only  temporal,  and  wholly  executed  in  the  de- 


LECTURE  V.  101 

struction  of  the  Jewish  national  polity,  and  slaughter  of  the 
people  in  Hinnom.  In  order  to  keep  and  strengthen  this 
ground,  every  passage  of  scripture  that  seems  to  militate 
against  it  must  be  explained  away,  and  gotten  rid  of;  this 
is  the  difficulty  into  which  our  Inquirer  has  brought  his  sys- 
tem. Our  author's  straitness  appears  very  conspicuously 
in  his  treatment  of  the  passage  at  the  head  of  this  discourse  : 
•  And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to 
kill  the  soul :  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy 
both  soul  and  body  in  Gehenna.'  Thus  it  stands  in  Mat- 
thew ;  in  Luke  it  is  thus  :  '  And  I  say  unto  you,  my  friends, 
be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  and  after  that  have 
no  more  that  they  can  do  :  but  I  will  forewarn  you  whom  ye 
shall  fear:  Fear  him  which  after  he  hath  killed,  hath  power 
to  cast  into  Gehenna,  yea,  I  say  unto  you  fear  him.' 

There  can  be  little  room  for  dispute  upon  the  visible  and 
common  sense  meaning  of  this  passage ;  neither  would 
there  be  any  ground  for  dispute,  were  the  text  read  in  eith- 
er language,  English  or  Greek  ;  but  when  the  ingenuity  of 
criticism  is  brought  in,  then,  we  are  diverted  from  the  com- 
mon sense  of  the  passage,  and  made  to  contend  about  words, 
and  renderings  to  no  real  profit.  But  this  Mr.  B —  has  done, 
and  we  must  follow  him  into  his  learned  recesses  as  well 
as  we  can,  and  dislodge  him  from  such  retreats.  The  "  In- 
quiry" notices  the  passage  thus  ;  (190)  "  Matthew  makes  a 
"  distinction  between  soul  and  bodv,  whereas  Luke  does 
"  not.  He  only  mentions  the  body.  It  seems  that  all  that 
"  Matthew  meant  by  soul  and  body,  Luke  considered  as  suf- 
"  ficiently  expressed  by  simply  mentioning  the  body."  I 
must  arrest  the  quotation  just  to  say,  that  this  mode  of  rea- 
soning, were  it  admitted,  would  destroy  a  great  part  of  di- 
vine testimony.  Every  body  knows  that  in  detailing  the 
sayings  and  doings  of  our  Saviour,  one  evangelist,  in  many 
cases,  is  more  explicit  than  another  ;  what  one  omits,  another 
inserts,  or  what  one  only  gives  in  substance,  another  gives 
in  the  variety  of  circumstance.  Upon  Mr.  B — 's  reasoning 
we  should  be  led  to  reject  the  circumstantial  narrative,  be- 

14 


102  LECTURE  V. 

cause  it  contained  more  than  the  other  which  was  concise 
and  brief.  Luke  mentions  only  the  body,  Matthew  soul  and 
body,  but  as  Matthew  says  too  much  for  Mr  B  —  's  system, 
Luke  must  be  made  to  contradict  Matthew,  and  set  that 
right,  and  in  a  simple  form,  which  the  other  had  perplexed 
by  being  more  circumstantial  than  was  necessary.  Let  us 
proceed  with  the  quotation  ;  ( 190)  "  Had  the  word  soul  in 
l<  Matthew  been  used  to  express  the  immortal  part  of  man, 
"  there  is  certainly  a  great  deficiency  in  Luke's  language,  in 
"  relating  this  discourse  of  our  Lord's.  But  if  he  by  mere- 
"  ly  mentioning  the  body,  correctly  and  fully  stated  what 
"  our  Lord  meant,  we  ought  not  to  consider  the  word  soul, 
"  as  used  by  Matthew,  as  meaning  the  immortal  spirit.  We 
"  shall  presently  attempt  to  show  that  the  word  nephish,  of 
"  the  Hebrew,  and  the  corresponding  word,  psuhe,  of  the 
"  Greek,  here  translated  soul,  are  both  often  used  to  express 
"  mere  natural  or  animal  life." — Mr.  B —  then  proceeds  to 
establish  his  position  in  a  very  lengthy,  and,  I  must  say, 
equally  wearisome  series  of  criticism  upon  soul  and  body,  all 
of  which  goes  only  to  perplex  a  simple  case,  and  to  make 
that  look  very  deep  and  learned  which  requires  no  great 
acuteness,  and  less  learning  to  detect  and  expose. 

1st.  The  Inquirer  says,  that,  if  Matthew  by  soul  meant  the 
immortal  part  of  man,  then  Luke  certainly  was  deficient  in 
his  statement.     If  by  Luke's  deficiency  he  means,   less  full 
and  explicit,  we  may  perhaps  admit  the  fact ;  each  of  the 
evangelists  who  omits  what  another  has  recorded  is  thus  de- 
ficient, but  there  is  nothing  to  be  charged  upon  the  writer 
on  this  account ;  I  should  think  this  was  too  trifling  a  cir- 
cumstance for  Mr.  B —  to  bring  into  his  aid.     But  if  he 
means  to  charge  Luke  with  a  deficiency  in  statement,  by 
which  an  act  of  injustice  is  committed  against  the  Saviour's 
discourse,  we  shall  consider  it  as  beyond  our  province  to 
answer.     Or  if  he  means  to  accommodate  this  deficiency  of 
Luke,  to  the  overturning  and  taking  away  what  Matthew  has 
said,  we  shall  stand  and  contend  for  the  verity  of  both  evan- 
gelists ;  and  I  believe  it  will  not  be  very  difficult  to  point 


LECTURE  V.  lux 

«ut  the  perfect  agreement  of  these  two  writers,  for  though 
Luke  omits  the  word  soul,  vet  he  is  more  full  in  some  other 
part  of  his  statement ;  while  Matthew  says  only,  that  God 
is  able  to  destroy Jboth  soul  and  body  in  hell;  Luke  says,  that 
God,  after  he  hath  killed,  hath  power  (is  able)  to  cast  into 
hell.  Now  I  ask  whether  Luke  does  not  declare  the  de- 
struction of  the  soul  in  Gehenna  as  well  as  Matthew  ?  After 
he  hath  killed,  that  is  the  body,  hath  power  to  cast  into  Ge- 
henna ;  to  cast  what  into  Gehenna  ?  the  body  ?  will  Mr. 
B —  or  one  of  his  disciples  say  yes,  to  cast  the  body  into  Ge- 
henna to  be  sure:  observe,  I  do  not  force  this  confession; 
but  if  both  passages,  or  either  of  them,  mean  only  body, 
and  body  is  all  that  is  intended  by  our  Lord,  then  all  that 
can  be  contended  for  is,  the  casting  of  the  body  mto  Gehen- 
na after  it  is  killed.  And  what  a  wonderful  punishment  is 
this  !  and  what  a  wonderful  display  of  divine  power  is  this  ! 
Fear  that  God  who  is  able  to  kill  your  poor,  frail  body,  and 
then  is  able  to  cast  that  body  into  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  to 
be  burned,  or  to  be  consumed  bv  worms  !  Should  I  ever  be- 
come  a  Universalist  of  Mr.  B — 's  school,  I  do  think  mv  con- 
version  will  be  effected  by  reasoning  more  powerful  than  this. 
2d.  Simple  and  pitiful  as  we  have  considered  this  mode 
of  reasoning  to  be,  it  is  that  for  which  our  Inquirer  is  going 
to  contend,  and  that  very  critically  too.  He  is  going  to 
"  attempt  to  show"  that  this  passage  has  no  reference  to  the 
"  immortal  part  of  man,"  but  only  to  the  "  mere  natural  or 
animal  life."  This  he  attempts  to  show  by  asserting,  first, 
that  &*s33  nephish  in  the  Hebrew,  translated  ^X"  psuche  in 
the  Greek,  and  soul  in  the  English,  is  "  often  used  to  express 
mere  natural  or  animal  life."  We  admit  this,  namely,  that 
it  is  "  often"  so  used,  but  does  Mr.  B —  offer  this  for  proof 
that  soul  means  merely  animal  life  in  this  place  ?  because, 
if  he  does  not  prove  this,  he  proves  nothing;  nor  can  he 
prove  any  thing  by  this,  for  he  tells  us  only  that  soul  often, 
not  always,  means  natural  or  animal  life  :  and  so  that  if  it 
only  sometimes  means  this,  he  has  not  by  such  reasoning 
proved  that  it  means  this  here  ;    yet  we  demand  this  proof 


10*  LECTURE  V. 

before  we  are  converted  :  but  this  proof  cannot  be  given. 
The  Let  is  that  4^x*  soul  is  a  term  of  very  various  applica- 
tion ;  soul,  sometimes  means  simply  the  person,  or  individu- 
al, as  on  board  Paul's  ship,  there  were  two  hundred  three- 
score and  sixteen  souls,  vj^a/,  that  is  so  many  persons  or 
individuals.  This  occurs  in  numerous  instances  not  need- 
ful to  mention.  Soul  also  frequently  signifies  animal  life,  as 
Mr.  B —  very  correctly  shows  ;  and  it  likewise  frequently 
signifies  the  rational,  immortal  mind,  as  we  will  show.  fHeb» 
x.  39.^  ■  We  are  not  of  them  who  draw  back  unto  perdi- 
tion (destruction  ;)  but  of  them  that  believe,  to  the  saving 
of  the  soul."  fpsuche.J  f\  Pet.  i.  9.  J  '  Receiving  the  end  of 
your  faith,  even  the  salvation  of  your  souls',  (psuchai.) 
fo  John,  2.  J  i  Beloved,  I  wish  above  all  things  that  thou 
mayest  prosper  and  be  in  health,  even  as  thy  soul  fpsuchej 
prospereth.'  These  are  only  two  or  three  instances  among 
a  great  many,  showing  that  soul  fpsuchej  often  means  the 
spiritual,  immortal  part ;  for  it  would  be  perfect  nonsense 
to  read  these  passages  animal  spirit :  and  I  am  unwilling  to 
read  them  so  in  this  public  assembly,  because  it  would  ap- 
pear ridiculous,  and  it  would  be  holding  up  our  author  to 
contempt,  which  thing  I  conscientiously  avoid.  You  see 
then,  that  the  absolute  meaning  of  soul  fpsuchej  depends  en- 
tirely upon  the  way  in  which  it  is  used,  and  the  subject  to 
which  it  is  applied ;  the  most  common  reader  of  the  scrip- 
tures can  see  this,  and  nobody  would  have  been  in  any  strait 
if  our  Inquirer  had  not  perplexed  them  with  his  very  partial, 
and  I  must  say,  unfair,  citations :  and  I  am  sorry  that  he 
has  farther  pursued  the  same  bewildering  and  deceptive 
course:  for  to  make  good  his  argument  against  soul  fpsuchej 
being  ever  intended  for  the  immortal  party  he  asserts,  or 
rather  insinuates,  that  when  the  immortal  part  of  man  is  in- 
tended, mtvuet  pneuma,  is  used  and  not  ^v^n  p  sue  he  ;  but  this 
is  quite  as  wide  of  the  truth  as  the  other  criticism  ;  Mr. 
B — 's  cause  must  be  desperate,  or  he  would  not  catch  at 
such  mere  straws.  JJyivjux  pneuma  is  applied  to  both,  ani- 
mal life,  and  immortal  life.     When  our  Lord  raised  Jairus1 


LKCTUKE  V.  105 

daughter  to  life  (Luke\\\\.  55. )  it  is  said,  'Her  spirit, 
tthv^ol,  came  again.'  By  this  return  of  her  spirit  is  meant 
the  same,  I  apprehend,  as  that  for  which  Elijah  prayed  in 
regard  to  another  dead  child,  'Let  this  child's  soul  4<vX"  come 
into  him  again.'  You  see  that  no  stress  can  be  laid  upon 
the  mere  use  of  these  terms,  without  regard  being  paid  to 
the  subject  and  circumstances  relating  thereto.  That  Mr. 
B —  should  have  endeavoured  to  raise  proofs,  from  such 
equivocal  ground,  is  greatly  against  his  theory  and  his  judg- 
ment :  but  all  this  is  to  show,  if  possible,  that  our  Lord  by 
using  the  terms  body  and  soul  meant  nothing  more  than  bo- 
dy  ;  but  even  admitting  that  he  proved  this,  namely,  that 
soul  meant  body,  he  does  not  seem  to  be  fully  aware  of  the 
absurd  consequence  involved  in  the  proof;  Jesus  is  made 
to  speak  in  this  manner,  '  Fear  not  them  which  kill  the  ani- 
mal life,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  animal  life,  but  rather 
fear  him  which  is  able  to  destroy  both  animal  life  and  ani- 
mal life  in  Gehenna.'  For  Mr.  B —  to  render  Luke's  pas- 
sage in  his  own  way  would  be  still  more  absurd,  and  savour 
too  much  of  trifling  for  reciting  in  this  solemn  exercise. 
Our  Inquirer  seems  to  be  aware  at  last  of  his  desperate  con- 
dition, and  so  to  make  his  escape,  he  veils  himself  in  a  cloud 
of  critical  citations,  leaving  us  in  the  possession  of  soul  and 
body,  the  mortal  and  immortal  part,  liable  to  punishment  in 
Gehenna,  praying  Godrs  mercy,  and  saying,  (207)  "  God 
is  able  to  destroy  both  soul  and  body — his  power  reaches  to 
this,  but  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  he  will  not  do  this."  Alas  ! 
that  Mr.  B —  with  his  knowledge  of  divine  things,  and  ex- 
perience too,  in  the  art  of  reasoning  and  proving  out  of  the 
scriptures,  should  have  so  suffered  his  understanding  to  be- 
come  the  vassal  of  a  system  calculated  only  to  serve  the 
cause  of  scepticism,  and  to  overthrow  all  legitimate  authori- 
ty, human  and  divine. 

All  Mr.  B — 's  reasoning  upon  Gehenna  goes  upon  a  mis- 
take which  we  have  seen  to  consist  in  a  premature  appre- 
hension of  the  meaning  of  scripture.  His  imagination  is  so 
alive  to  his  system  that  he  anticipates  his  proofs,  and  so  at 


106  LECTURE  VI. 

last  fails  to  realize  them  ;  just  so  with  Hades,  in  many  of  its 
applications,  as  we  have  seen  ;  so  that  it  is  wearisome  and 
even  painful  to  follow  him  in  such  labyrinths,  especially  as 
wc  are  averse  to  a  spirit  of  rivalry  and  triumph  ;  all  we  wish, 
is  to  convince  by  a  fair  developement  of  truth,  and  there 
leave  the  matter.  Whether  this  has  been  effected  on  the 
article  of  Gehenna,  must  be  left  with  the  candid  mind  to  de- 
cide. A  review  of  the  course  we  have  taken  remains  for 
your  consideration,  with  which  we  shall  close. 


Mr.  Balfour's  System  opposed  to  Divine  Authority. 


DO    YE    NOT    THEREFORE    ERR,    BECAUSE    YE    KNOW    NOT    THE  SCRIP- 
TURES,   NEITHER    THE    POWER    OF    GOD  ? Mark  xil*.  24. 

There  is  an  intimate  connexion  between  all  errors  ;  and 
what  is  remarkable,  those  errors  which  seem  to  be  the  most 
opposed,  will,  upon  examination,  be  found  to  be  of  the 
nearest  kindred.  The  errors  of  superstition  and  of  infideli- 
ty will  be  found  to  justify  this  observation.  Superstition 
believes  till  the  mind  is  surfeited  by  the  fulness  of  absurdi- 
ty :  Infidelity  comes  in  to  its  relief,  and,  after  having  been 
so  much  the  dupe  of  imposition,  great  credit  is  taken  in 
doubting  every  thing,  and  believing  nothing.  It  was  the 
growing  sect  of  the  Pharisees  that  brought  in  the  sect  of  the 
Sadducees.  The  Pharisees  had  been  excessive  in  their  re- 
spect for  tradition,  they  had  loaded,  and  even  disfigured  the 
duties  of  religion  with  many  a  vain  superstition,  till  the  more 
inquiring  and  freethinking  part  of  the  community,  began  to 
speculate  upon  every  spiritual  claim  ;  not  only  was  all  tradi- 
tionary authority  by  them  despised  and  rejected,  but  even 
the  more  spiritual  and  sacred  doctrines  of  divine  revelation 
were  explained  away,  so  as  to  make  ail  the  duties  of  religion 


LECTURE  VI.  107 

» 

comport  with  the  low  demands  of  a  worldly  sanctuary,  and 
a  material  state.  Thus  the  doctrines  of  the  Pharisees  and 
Sadducecs  are  brought  to  view.in  the  ministry  of  our  bless- 
ed Lord,  of  which  he  bids  his  disciples  to  be  aware ;  4  Be- 
ware, said  he,  of  the  leaven  of  the  Pharisees,  and  of  the 
Sadducces.' 

Here  appears  to  me  the  origin  of  Mr.  Balfour's  scheme, 
with  its  progress  and  consequences.  His  scheme  has  risen 
from  the  disgust  he  has  taken  at  the  superstitions,  assump- 
tions, errors  and  hypocricies  which  have  mingled  with  the 
profession  of  religion.  Mr.  B —  in  his  "  Inquiry"  has  not 
made  a  proper  distinction  between  the  doctrines  of  revela- 
tion, and  the  erroneous  and  faulty  way  in  which  they  have 
been  represented  and  taught,  and  so  he  has  too  indiscrimi- 
nately condemned  the  truth  itself,  along  with  the  errors 
which  are  a  manifest  departure  from  it.  The  strong  meta- 
phor and  lively  drapery,  with  which  revelation  is  often  clad, 
seem  to  have  given  occasion  of  offence  :  and  not  having 
been  able  to  follow  this  figurative  display  into  the  realities 
of  a  spiritual  world,  his  mind  has  been  suffered  to  return 
back  to  this  material  state,  and  settle  down  contented  with 
that  evidence  which  only  makes  its  appeal  to  the  senses ; 
the  scriptures  and  the  power  of  God  he  has  not  duly  consi- 
dered, and  this  is  where  Mr.  B — 's  system  fails,  and  must 
fall.  This  is  the  view  we  are  now,  in  conclusion,  to  take  of 
Mr.  B — 's  whole  scheme. 

At  the  close  of  our  last  discourse,  we  left  our  Inquirer  in 
the  turmoil  of  his  material  scheme.  He  had  laboured  hard, 
and  distressed  himself  not  a  little,  in  attempting  to  prove 
that  body  and  soul,  as  expressed  by  our  Saviour,  in  his  doc- 
trine to  his  disciples,  meant  the  same  thing,  and,  that  only 
the  mortal  part  of  man  was  intended.  But  all  Mr.  B — 's 
arguments,  instead  of  proofs,  are  mere  evasions,  critical 
perplexities,  and  feeble  consequences  :  he  evidently  is  not 
satisfied  with  his  own  performance,  he  has  no  confidence  in 
his  own  conclusions  ;  neither  can  he  persuade  himself  that 
his  reader  will  be  convinced,  for,  he  at  last  has  wound  him- 


108  LECTURE  VI. 

self  up  in  a  web  of  intricacy,  of  which  he  is  so  conscious,  that 
he  is  obliged  suddenly  to  forsake  his  strong  hold,  and  beg  his 
way  out  at  the  mercy  of  God.  (195)  "  God  ^able^  destroy 
"  both  soul  and  body  in  hell — He  hath  power  to  cast  into  hell. 
"  Power  or  ability  to  do  this  is  one  thing,  actually  to  do  it 
"  is  another."  Able  to  do  this  ?  able  to  do  what?  why 
destroy  soul  and  body  in  Gehenna.  But  how  can  God  do 
that  which  is  impossible  ?  has  not  Mr.  B —  been  writing 
many  a  lengthy  page  to  prove  that  the  soul  here  said  to  be 
exposed  to  punishment,  is  only  the  body,  why  then  beg 
mercy  ?  why  take  shelter  in  a  mere  threat,  God  cannot  ex- 
ecute ?  "  It  is  only  said  he  is  able  to  do  it,"  but  saying  he  is 
able  is  no  proof  that  he  will.  Now  what  does  this  amount 
to?  Jesus  Christ  says,  God  is  able  to  destroy  body  and  soul 
in  Gehenna  ;  but  by  body  and  soul  we  are  to  understand 
only  body.  Well  then  we  give  up  soul,  and  admit  that 
God  is  able  to  destroy  the  body  in  Gehenna.  Is  Mr.  B— 
willing  to  admit  this  as  a  question  settled  ?  We  have  given 
up  soul  punishment  out  of  courtesy  to  his  system,  now  cer- 
tainly he  will  surrender  to  God  his  right  to  punish  the  body 
in  Gehenna.  O  no,  Mr.  B —  says,  It  is  not  declared  that 
God  will  do  it,  only  that  he  can  do  it,  for  ability  to  do 
it  is  one  things  and  actually  to  do  it  is  another.  Our  conclu- 
sion, then,  is,  that  man  will  not  be  destroyed  or  punished  in 
Gehenna,  soul  or  body  :  but  is  this  the  conclusion  to  which 
Mr.  B —  intended  to  come  ?  yet,  willing  or  unwilling,  he 
must  come  to  it;  for  the  last  and  consummating  argument 
he  has  produced  to  prove,  that  man's  soul  shall  not  be  pun- 
ished in  Gehenna,  proves  also  that  man's  body  shall  not  be 
punished  there,  and  so  he  has  proved  that  there  is  no  pun- 
ishment in  Gehenna  at  all.  Disciples  of  Mr.  B — ,  are  you 
satisfied  with  your  master's  reasoning  ?  if  you  are,  it  is  more 
than  he  is  himself;  for  after  having  written  twenty  six  pages 
of  criticism  on  this  passage,  in  which  he  has  quoted  I  know 
not  how  many  learned  and  classic  authorities,  he  has  work- 
ed himself  into  such  a  labyrinth  of  perplexity,  and  so  con- 
fused his  readers,  that  he  has  found  it  necessary  to  add  two 


LECTURE  VI.  109 

more  pages  by  way  of  note,  in  order  to  relieve  himself  and 
his  readers  from  their  difficulties :  but  what  has  he  done  by 
this  crowded  note  ?  why,  I  should  say  without  hesitancy, 
that  he  had  acknowledged  the  feebleness  of  all  he  had  ad- 
vanced in  the  foregoing  twenty  six  pages  ;  for,  in  this  note 
he  declares  himself  alive  to  the  difficulties  still  all  around 
him,  and  that  he  is  yet  seeking  a  way  out.  And  what  is 
very  remarkable,  this  labouring-mountainous  note,  after 
great  critical  pangs,  as  in  the  text,  brings  forth  issue — an 
abortion  !  I  had  almost  said — the  same  tame  creature  as  in 
the  former  travail.  [Note  A  p.  214,)  "  But  in  whatever  way 
"  the  passage  is  interpreted,  it  is  evident  that  Christ  wasad- 
"  dressing  his  disciples,  and  though  his  power  or  ability  is 
"  asserted  to  do  what  is  said  in  the  passage,  yet  neither  here 
"  nor  any  where  else  is  he  ever  said  to  do  it."  Observe 
here,  "  In  whatever  way  the  passage  is  interpreted,"  that  is, 
if  it  be  interpreted  to  mean  only  body,  then,  he  says,  it  is 
evident  that  though  God  can  destroy  it  in  Gehenna,  he  nev- 
er will  do  it ;  for,  "  neither  here  or  any  where  else  is  he  ever 
said  to  do  it."  So  you  see  Mr.  B — 's  argument  has  com- 
mitted suicide,  it  has  destroyed  itself — though  God  is  able 
to  destroy  the  body  in  Hell,  He  never  will  do  it, 

Tartarus  remains  yet  to  be  considered.  It  occurs  but 
once  in  the  scriptures ;  it  is  in  2d.  Peter  ii.  4,  and  in  the 
common  version  translated  Hell.  The  phrase  originally  is 
Greek,  tol^tol^  ;  it  is  derived  from  a  word  or  words  expres- 
sive of  horror  and  trouble  of  mind,  as  Tafaoro,  tarasso,  which 
signifies  a  turbid,  distressed  state.  Tartarus  was  the  name 
the  poets  gave  to  the  future  state  of  punishment ;  it  was 
generally  known  in  that  character,  hence  Peter  adopts  it  as 
descriptive  of  the  state  of  punishment  to  which  the  trans- 
gressing angels  fell  upon  their  condemnation.  Why  Peter 
chose  this  term  we  cannot  say,  any  more  than  we  can  why 
our  Lord  adopted  such  words  as  Mammon,  Boanerges, 
Paradise.  All  we  can  say,  Peter  was  divinely  inspired, 
and  so  the  adoption  of  the   phrase  is  of  divine  authority  ; 

15 


no  LECTURE  VI. 

Mr.  B —  says  nothing  against  this  term,  that  needs  a  re- 
ply, and  therefore  we  need  not  detain  you  on  a  question  not 
disputed. 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  ground  assigned  us  in  the 
"  Inquiry,"  we  have  directly  met  and  examined  Mr.  B — 's 
principal  arguments  on  the  derivation,  uses,  and  application 
of  the  terms  Sheol,  Hades  and  Gehenna.  It  now  re- 
mains, that  we  bring  our  animadversions  and  reasonings 
into  a  narrow  compass,  that  at  a  single  glance  you  may  see 
how  the  truth  lies  between  the  two  theories :  as  we  thus 
approach  the  end  of  our  course,  we  shall  pay  all  necessary 
attention  to  some  scattering  arguments  and  objections,  as 
they  may  appear  to  us  on  our  road.  There  are  two  or 
three  things  at  which  we  have  only  just  glanced,  which  must 
be  more  fully  mei ;  and  this  also  is  before  us,  and  will  aid 
us  in  drawing  ail  to  one  point.  As  we  in  our  first  discourse 
attempted  to  give  an  orderly  and  distinct  view  of  the  work 
then  before  us,  so  now  we  shall  attempt  a  similar  order  in 
reviewing  what  we  have  done. 

I.  We  have  with  candour  and  precision  marked  the 
ground  taken  or  assumed  by  our  author,  namely,  No  future 
punishment ;  this  ground  he  has  chosen  for  himself,  he  tells 
us  so  in  language  not  to  be  misunderstood  ;  and  that  we  may 
be  more  than  sure  that  his  present  "  Inquiry"  is  on  future 
punishment  simply,  he  informs  us,  that  he  has  "  a  separate 
Inquiry,"  which  may  be  hereafter  published,  on  eternal 
punishment.  This  treatise,  then,  is  simply  on  future  pun- 
ishment :  and  here  it  is  that  Mr.  B —  falls,  for  almost  the 
Whole  of  his  book  is  written  in  assertion  and  proof  of  some- 
thing  else  ;  and  what  little  there  is  on  the  promised  point  is 
so  diluted  and  debased  by  this  indecision  and  irrelevancy  as 
to  accomplish  scarcely  any  thing  in  the  whole  argument. 
Before  Mr.  B —  can  do  any  tiling  more  in  this  controversy, 
he  must  go  back,  and  begin  afresh,  and  set  out  with  some- 
thing speci;il  before  him,  something  he  can  handle  himself, 
and  something  he  can  make  tangible  to  others.      That  he 


LKCTURE  VI.  in 

is  in  a  state  of  great  confusion  on  this  subject  is  evident  from 
another  circumstance,  namely,  this  other  "  Inquiry"  of 
which  he  speaks  in  a  note  appended  to  chap.  ii.  This  separ- 
ate Inquiry  is  to  be  on  the  renderings  of  "  olm%  aion,  and 
amnion — eternal,  everlasting,  &c."  by  which,  it  seems,  we 
are  to  receive  proof  that  these  terms  originally  did  not  as- 
sert an  endless  or  everlasting  punishment,  but  only  a  limited 
punishment.  But  then  it  seems  to  me  a  very  strange  thing 
for  Mr.  B —  to  settle  down  upon  a  conviction  that  there  is 
no  future  pun.shment,  and  write  a  book  to  show  us  the 
ground  upon  which  his  conviction  rests,  and  then  write  an- 
other book  to  prove  and  show  that  there  is  no  eternal 
or  endless  punishment.  Surely,  his  first  book  supersedes 
his  second ;  it*  he  proves,  to  his  own  satisfaction,  and  to  the 
satisfaction  of  his  disciples,  that  there  is  no  future  punish- 
ment, he  has  proved  already  that  there  can  be  no  eternal 
punishment ;  for  what  never  begins,  can  never  continue  ; 
were  I  to  show,  convincingly,  to  any  thief  the  utter  impos- 
sibility of  his  being  shut  up  in  prison,  would  not  this  satis- 
fy him,  and  were  I  to  add  to  these  assurances  some  instruc- 
tions about  the  best  way  of  getting  out  of  prison  would  he 
not  smile  at  the  discordancy  of  my  doctrine  ;  or,  what  is 
worse,  should  I  not  bring  my  assurances  mthe  first  instance 
into  suspicion  by  my  instruction  in  the  second  instance. 
This  is  Mr.  B — 's  predicament.  He  writes  one  book  to 
show  that  there  is  no  future  punishment,  and  then  writes 
another  to  show  that  future  punishment  is  not  eternal,  ad- 
mitting the  very  ground  in  the  second,  denied  in  the  first, 
and  so  the  one  contradicts  the  other.  Or  if  Mr.  B —  means 
by  his  first  book  to  show  that  all  punishment  is  temporal, 
and  by  his  second  that  it  is  not  eternal,  he  is  in  the  same 
dilemma  ;  for  that  which  is  proved  to  be  only  temporal  is 
tacitly  disproved  by  an  attempt  to  prove  that  it  is  not  eter- 
nal. Indeed,  all  this  discordancy  is  in  the  first  book  now 
before  us ;  there  is  no  need  of  a  second,  it  would  render 
confusion  worse  confounded,  we  have  here  asserted  that 


Hi  LECTURE  VI. 

there  is  no  future  punishment,  and  then  it  is  admitted  that 
there  is  by  the  many  assertions  that  there  is  no  eternal  pun- 
ishment. But  these  are  absurdities  in  which  many  wise  and 
good  men  have  fallen,  and  it  has  been  the  lot  of  others,  less 
wise,  and  less  learned,  to  show  these  profound  sages  their 
errors,  and  to  help  them  out  of  their  difficulties  :  may  this 
be  the  happy  result  of  this  our  humble  attempt  in  regard  to 
Mr.  B  —  and  his  disciples. 

II.  Mr.  B — 's  system  goes  upon  a  principle  directly  op- 
posed to  all  God's  moral  government.  Indeed,  I  cannot 
see  what  his  theory  has  to  do  with  the  Immortal  God,  or 
the  immortal  soul,  or  with  any  thing  that  is  eternal,  immor- 
tal and  invisible ;  everything  beyond  the  bounds  of  this 
material,  visible  world  he  seems  to  doubt  or  denv. 

I  st.  The  government  nnderwhich  the  "Inquiry"  apprehends 
the  world  at  first,  is  by  no  means  a  moral  government.  It 
has  no  hold  upon  the  mind,  it  offers  to  the  mind  nothing 
worth  having,  and  threatens  nothing  worth  the  mind's  rever- 
ence ;  there  is  nothing  to  fear.  Adam,  Noah,  Abraham, 
with  all  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  Mr.  B —  says,  knew 
nothing  about  a  moral  state  of  retribution.  Adam  was 
threatened  with  a  punishment  in  unison  with  that  threatened 
to  the  old  world,  the  Sodomites,  and  the  nation  of  the  Jews, 
temporal  punishment  in  the  infliction  of  natural  evil.  Here 
it  will  be  in  place  to  look  at  Mr.  B — 's  system  of  retribu- 
tive justice,  for  he  admits  of  rewards  and  punishments.  The 
inhabitants  of  the  old  world,  if  they  had  not  been  so  wick- 
ed, would  have  lived  longer  and  enjoyed  their  worldly  es- 
tate— but  being  so  addicted  to  vicious  pursuits,  God  over- 
threw them  in  the  flood.  So  it  was  with  the  cities  of  the 
Plain.  And  so  with  the  Jews.  In  all  these  cases,  and 
others  might  ht  adduced,  we  see  temporal  calamities  and 
natural  evils  inflicted  on  sinners  as  a  punishment,  but  is  it 
not  surprising  that  Mr.  B —  can  make  no  distinction  be- 
tween the  nature  of  tint  punishment  God  inflicts  on  men, 
in  their  collective  and  political  character,  and  that  inflicted  on 


LECTURE  VI.  113 

them  in  their  individual  and  moral  character  ?  Nations  and 
bodies  politic,  churches,  and  other  associations,  if  reward- 
ed or  punished,  must  be  so  dealt  within  this  present  visible 
state,  for  they  do  not  pass  into  the  future  state  as  nations  or 
churches,  or  in  any  other  associate  capacity.  Society  is 
broken  up  and  dissolved  at  death ;  this  is  taught  us  very 
explicitly  in  the  passage  of  which  our  text  is  a  part.  The 
Sadducees  thought  they  had  silenced  our  Lord  in  the  case 
of  the  *  seven  brethren,'  who,  every  one  of  them,  had  the 
same  woman  to  wife  :  but  the  error  and  misconception  was 
their's,  they  had  no  distinct  idea  upon  man's  moral  charac- 
ter and  accountability  :  they  had  confounded  man's  moral 
and  social  character,  and  so  had  drawn  unjust  conclusions. 
I  will  just  show  you  how  Jesus  answered  these  Sadducees. 
Observe,  they  brought  to  him  a  case,  ■  seven  brethren'  all 
had  one  woman  to  wife — now  was  not  this  an  imaginary 
case,  a  fiction  ?  was  it  likely  that  c  seven  brethren'  could  be 
found  in  Jewish  history  who  had  all  of  them  this  same  wo- 
man, as  the  case  asserts?  Surely  it  must  have  been  spara- 
ble, as  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus  ;  and  if  Jesus  had  been 
no  better  prepared  to  answer  them  than  Mr.  B —  is  in  his 
system,  he  would  have  endeavoured  to  escape  the  reasoning 
by  saying  :  '  These  seven  brethren  is  only  a  parable.'  But 
he  sought  not,  he  needed  not  relief  in  this  way  :  he  boldly 
met  the  question,  and  admitted  this  parable  to  be  taken  from 
real  history,  and  pointed  out  to  them  their  error  in  not 
knowing  the  scripture  nor  the  power  of  God.  So  Mr.  B —  not 
duly  apprehending  the  nature  and  character  of  God's  moral 
dominion  over  men,  has  confounded  the  two  characters  and 
the  two  capacities  of  men  :  because  nations  and  societies  of 
men  must  be  rewarded  or  punished  in  this  time  state, 
and  are  so  dealt  with,  he  concludes,  in  perfect  agreement 
with  these  Sadducees,  that  there  is  no  retribution  for  man 
in  any  other  state  and  condition  besides  this.  Strange,  that 
a  man  of  the  acuteness  of  our  author  should  not  see  this. 
2d.  This  misapprehension  of  the  scriptures  and  the  moral 


«  ill  LECTURE    VI. 

power  of  God  renders  all  our  Inquirers  arguments  on  a  fu- 
ture moral  state  of  existence  feeble  and  f utile.     On  the  dis- 
tinction,  he  anticipates,   between   state   and   place,   he 
manifests    considerable  uneasiness ;    he   would  that  both 
should  explicitly  mean  the  same  thing,  and  that  thing  must 
be  place.  This  is  like  his  doings  with  soul  and  body,  both 
terms  must  alike  mean  body.      From  these  beggings  and 
pleadings  it  is  pretty  evident,  that,  to  complete   his  system 
nothing  is  wanted  but  this  material,  visible  world  :    a  ma- 
terial and  visible  God  he  needs,  but  this  being  he  has  not  yet 
found,  and  so  must  proceed  without  such  an  auxiliary  ;  but 
a  visible  material  man  he  has  found,  and  every  thing  that 
can  be  done  by  Mr.  B —  has  been  done  in  order  to  preserve 
him  whole,  and  wholly,  in  that  character.     Man  shall  have 
no  soul,  and  if  he  is  said  to  have  a  soul  his  soul  shall  be  re- 
duced to  u  a  Hebrew  idiom"  and  then  its  spiritual  character 
is  so  neutralized  as  to  become  body :  and  as  man  is  so  ma- 
terial, our  Inquirer  has  not  furnished,  in  his  theory,  any  fu- 
ture state  of  moral  exercise  or  existence.     Sheol  or  Hades, 
either  of  these  in  a  separate  language,  or  both  of  these  as 
meaning  the  same  thing,  signify  the  grave  or  state  of  the 
dead :  but  all  that  I  can  make  out  in  Mr.  B — 's  system  on 
the  state  of  the  dead,  is  the  state  of  the  dead  body,  the  tomb, 
the  sepulchre.     Our  Saviour  represents  two  men  in  the  fu- 
ture state,  in  Hades,  one  happy,  the  other  miserable ;  their 
condition  is  so  dissimilar,  that  one  is  '  afar  off  from  the  other 
and  such  an  abyss  between  them  that  they  cannot  come  to- 
gether— But  Mr.  B —  destroys  all  this  by  a  stroke  or  two 
of  his  rhetoric,  he  says,  that  it  is  only  a  fiction  of  our  Saviour's 
or  a  parable :  he  gets  rid  of  the  soul  by  a  Hebrew  idiom, 
and  of  torment  in  Hades  by  a  fiction  or  a  parable.     These 
two  men,  instead  of  being,  one  in  a  state  of  happiness,  and 
the  other  in  a  state  of  misery,  are  according  to  the  "  Inquiry" 
in  one  place  in  which  they  are  neither  happy  nor  miserable  ; 
not  afar  off  from  each  other,  but  only  "  at  some  (little)  dis- 
tance"— "  and  on  a  level  with  each  other."     You  perceive 


LECTURE  VI.  115 

here  that  Mr.  B —  will  have  no  state  or  condition  for  man 
but  what  is  visible  and  within  the  range  of  our  senses.  Give 
Mr.  B — place  and  mate  rial  and  he  can  do  very  well;  but 
cut  him  off  from  these  resources  and  he  prays  the  help  of 
parable  and  Hebrew  idiom. 

Gehenna,  also,  in  the  same  theory  is  a  place  ;  the  New 
Testament  Hell  is  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  Jesus  declares 
only  the  destruction  of  the  Jews  as  a  nation  in  Gehenna  ; 
this  is  all  that  is  intended  by  the  damnation  of  Gehenna.  To 
make  good  this  material  system,  man  is  divested  of  his  spir- 
itual capacity  and  possessing  no  higher  nature  than  his  bo- 
dy, is  cast  into  Gehenna,  where  he  is  consumed  by  fire  and 
worms.  Gehenna  is  an  emblem,  he  says,  but  without  any 
moral  allusion,  for  Gehenna  (Hinnom)  is  an  emblem  of  Ge- 
henna ;  not  even  one  place  an  emblem  of  another  place,  but 
one  place  an  emblem  of  the  same  place.  Thus  Mr.  B-— 
manages  his  material  theory,  yet  we  do  not  mean  to  receive 
such  reasonings  for  doctrine. 

But  we  must  not  leave  this  article  as  Mr.B — has  left  it ;  we 
must  assign  some  reasons  for  our  faith  in  a  future  state  ; 
a  future  state  of  punishment  is  the  question  handed  us  by 
our  Inquirer  ;  let  us  turn  our  attention  to  it. 

First.  Whatever  may  be  urged  against  the  infliction  of  suf- 
fering from  the  benevolence  of  Deity  amounts  to  very  little, 
for,  men,  as  we  have  an  opportunity  of  seeing  them,  and  as 
our  own  experience  demonstrates,  are  generally  great  suffer- 
ers :  say,  that  what  God  inflicts  in  this  present  state,  is  in  the 
exercise  of  his  moral  government,  and  that  it  is  rather  for 
discipline  and  correction  than  in  wrath  and  anger ;  admit 
this,  for  the  sake  of  pursuing  the  argument,  and  then  suffer- 
ing inflicted  or  even  permitted  by  the  Deity  is  a  mark  of  his 
displeasure ;  God  does  not  afflict  willingly,  that  is,  with 
complacency  ;  he  does  it  because  there  is  something  dis- 
pleasing to  him,  and  at  which  he  shows  his  displeasure. 
Hence,  then,  there  is  a  great  deal  of  misery  in  this  world, 
and  misery  too  in  the  very  face  of  divine  benevolence.  Some 


tie  LECTURE  VI. 

men  live  almost  a  whole  life  in  suffering  and  pain.  Some 
endure,  in  addition  to  their  maladies,  the  most  cruel  and  tor- 
menting remedies  ;  for  hours  together  under  the  knife  of  the 
surgeon  ;  and  these  operations  frequently  repeated.  Some 
are  flayed  alive  with  blisters,  or  burnt  alive  with  caustics. 
Think  of  what  multitudes  have  endured  by  famine  and  pesti- 
lence, by  fire  and  flood  and  frost,  by  earthquake,  and  storm, 
and  ship- wreck.  The  theatre  of  war,  the  field  of  battle  or  the 
seige,  ah,  what  has  man  prepared  for  himself  here !  To  be 
shot  through  in  a  hundred  places — to  be  hacked  and  hewn 
all  over  with  the  cruel  sword — to  be  blown  up  into  the  air 
along  with  stones  and  bricks  and  broken  timber,  and  let  fall 
again  with  dreadful  crash — to  be  buried  alive  in  a  heap  of 
slain,  to  be  crushed  and  bruised  and  killed  by  inches,  by  the 
hoofs  of  the  war  horse,  and  the  iron  wheels  of  the  ponderous 
cannon  car — I  leave  the  escaped  soldier  to  describe  the  rest. 
But  you  see,  and  you  feel  that  man  is  capable  of  great  suf- 
fering in  this  present  state,  and  that  God  abandons  him  to 
the  endurance  of  a  great  weight  of  misery.  Nothing  that 
can  be  said  on  the  benevolence  of  Deity,  goes  to  weaken 
this  doctrine  :  God,  in  the  exercise  of  his  perfections,  aban- 
dons man  to  suffering  and  to  misery  in  a  thousand  shapes. 

Secondly.  The  wicked  are  more  obnoxious  to  suffer- 
ing in  the  future  world  than  they  can  be  in  the  present ; 
a  disembodied  state  is  a  state  of  experience,  and  more 
depends  on  the  mind  than  on  matter.  Man's  sufferings 
in  this  present  state  are  increased  or  mitigated  by  the 
operations  of  the  mind.  Beasts  it  is  presumed  suffer  less 
than  men ;  young  children  suffer  less  acutely  than  grown 
persons.  Want  of  mind  deducts  from  the  sum  of  capac- 
ity for  suffering ;  the  consequence  then  is,  that  man  in  a 
separate,  disembodied  state  must  have  an  increased  capac- 
ity for  suffering.  To  illustrate  this  point,  let  us  inquire  into 
the  chief  causes  and  sources  of  gratification  to  man  in  his 
present  terrestrial  condition.  The  man  we  are  to  describe 
is  merely  the  man  of  this  world,  not  the  voluptuary  or  the 


LECTURE  VI.  417 

drunkard,  or  the  man  of  mere  appetite,  but  the  man  that 
makes  the  most  of  this  world,  who  keeps  all  his  senses  con- 
stantly alive  to  worldly  enjoyments  by  a  moderate  enjoyment 
of  them — a  man,  however,  whose  appetites  are  all  in  favour  of 
worldly  gratification,  a  man  of  this  world.     Our  Lord  de- 
scribes such  a  man,  we  have  heard  of  him  before,  he  was 
rich,  and  clothed  in  rich  attire,  his  table  was  well  spread, 
and  he  fared  sumptuously  every  day  :  his  companions  were 
of  similar  appetites,  and  he  passed  his  days  in  mirth  and 
pleasure.     Solomon  in  his  low  estate  was  such  a  man,  he 
was  gratified  with  many  carnal  delights — delicious  music — 
seeing  great  and  various  sights — displaying  his  riches,  and 
giving  his  heart  to  vanity.     To  these   we  may  add  what 
some  men  derive  from  reviewing  past  indulgences,  and  from 
anticipating  expected  ones. — There  are   also   the   philoso- 
phies of  this  world,  if  I  may  so  speak  ;  some  men  delight 
themselves  in  social  intercourse,  in  political  combinations, 
in  schemes  of  civil  polity,  in  intrigues  and  management  of 
state  affairs.     Others  have  higher  and  more  refined  studies, 
they  aspire  to  the  sciences  and  the  arts,  literature  new  and 
old  is  their  idol.     But  all  these  pursuits  and  studies  are  in 
communion  with  the  creature:  God  and  divine  things  are 
excluded.    Now  introduce  such  men  into  the  world  of  spir- 
its, where  nothing  is  material  or  sensual,  but  all  mental  and 
intellectual,  and  what  sources  of  gratification   are    open  to 
them  ?  Here  is  no  luxuriantly  spread  table,  no  wines  of  rich 
flavour,  no  languishing  airs  upon  lute  or  harp,  nothing  to  in- 
vite a  fleshly  appetite, — and  no  such  appetite  to  indulge; 
all  these  capacities  for  sensual  enjoyments  are  left  behind  in 
that  world  to  which  they  can  never  return  :  no  philosophy 
or  science  such  as  earth  afforded,  no  political  aggrandize- 
ment nor  ambitious  projects,  nor  any  passion  for  such  exer- 
cises, were  they  proposed  or  possible.     It  is  difficult  to  fig- 
ure such  an  experience,   but  we  may  suppose  one  of  our 
race,  while  an  inhabitant  of  this  earth,  to  lose  all  his  five 
senses,  or  they  shall  be  so  impaired  that  they  shall  be  capa- 

16 


us  LECTURE  VI. 

ble  of  no  perfect  operations  :  he  shall  he  blind,  deaf,  be- 
numbed with  pals/,  dead  to  flavour  of  taste  and  smell; 
such  a  man  shall  breathe  and  have  the  exercise  of  his  men- 
tal powers,  and  without  his  bodily  senses,  what  a  wretch 
he  must  be.  Well !  this  is  something  more  than  imag- 
ination, the  man  of  the  world  is  going,  more  than  liter- 
ally, into  such  a  state,  a  state  where  all  this  and  more  will 
be  realized.  I  ask  what  a  man  of  this  world  can  find  to  his 
Satisfaction  in  the  eternal  world  of  spirits — not  one  single 
source  of  delight  or  of  pleasure  opens  to  him— what  knows 
he  of  God,  or  God  of  him?  are  they  not  perfect  strangers 
to  each  other — celestial  spirits  or  the  spirits  of  the  just  made 
perfect ;  their  fellowship  he  always  avoided,  and  what  soci- 
ety can  they  have  now  ?  In  this  disembodied  state  he  may 
meet  with  many  who  were  his  associates  formerly,  and  in 
whose  society  he  took  great  delight  ;  but  here  they  are  all 
changed,  they  are  like  himself,  disembodied,  having  no  more 
capacity  for  his  society  than  he  for  their's. — Only  think  of 
this  state  of  vacancy,  this  total  privation  of  all  that  is  or  can 
be  pleasurable.  But  this  is  not  all;  the  mind  is  alive,  and 
all  its  faculties  improved,  its  powers  are  more  independent, 
its  ardour  and  aspirings  are  more  abundant ;  yet  upon  what 
can  it  exercise  its  affections — it  must  fall  back  upon  itself — 
and  what  resource  has  it  here?  bitter  remorse,  solitary,  melan- 
choly, dismal  workings  of  a  wrathful  conscience.  The  mind 
runs  back  upon  all  the  pleasures  of  this  mortal  life,  but  these 
scenes  are  gone  by  never  to  return  ;  the  mind  looks  on,  but 
all  is  wild,  and  waste,  and  grim — the  blackness  of  darkness 
bounds  his  horizon,  and  hope  deferred  maketh  the  heart 
sick,  unto  despair  and  death.  Heaven,  he  has  heard  of  it, 
but  he  knows  nothing  of  it.  Hell,  he  has  heard  of  it  too, 
and  within  himself  he  finds  it— his  own  society  is  his  tor- 
ment, and  alienation  from  God  is  his  condemnation. 

In  this  method  of  illustration,  brethren,  you  must  have 
observed,  that  I  have  called  in  no  aid  from  Divine  wrath  to 
make  men  miserable.    I  have  made  a  hell  of  sin  and  sinners. 


LECTURE  VI.  119 

and  these  are  the  constitution  of  future  punishment ;  with- 
out these  not  all  the  thunderbolts  of  vengeance,  nor  stores 
of  wrath  could  make  a  lull.  Hell  is  that  state  in  which  the 
blessed  God  is  not — Hell  consists  in  the  love  of  sin  without 
a  capacity  for  its  pleasures :  on  earth  are  the  pleasures  of  sin 
for  a  season;  in  hell  that  season  is  over  ;  the  love  of  it  re- 
mains, but  the  pleasure  of  it  is  past ;  this  is  perdition. 

Mr.  B — 's  system  is  totally  aside  all  this  ;  he  knows  not 
anything  but  that  may  be  seen  or  felt,  as  we  see  and  feel  in  this 
world  of  sense.  Sheol,  Hades  or  Gehenna,  must  be  a  place, 
or  he  can  have  no  idea  of  any  existence  there.     Sheol  and 

m 

Hades  mean  the  grave,  the  state  of  the  dead,  and  our  In- 
quirer will  have  it  that  the  dead  are  there  ?  if  we  point  to 
him  the  living  th<  re,  and  not  the  dead,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
rich  man  and  Lazarus,  he  says  it  is  only  a  fiction,  a  parable, 
not  a  reality  :  but  in  this  he  joins  the  Sadducees,  who  knew 
not  the  scriptures  nor  the  power  of  God,  and  with  them 
falls  back  upon  a  scheme  of  mere  materialism,  in  opposition 
to  the  doctrines  of  revelation  irenerallv,  and  in  defiance  of 
the  doctrine  still  more  particularly  taught  by  Christ,  by 
whose  glorious  gospel  life  and  immortality  were  brought  to 
light,  and  the  vision  of  the  eternal  world  made  so  plain,  that 
he  may  run  that  readeth  it.  Gehenna  is  a  place  of  suffer- 
ing, a  place  of  suffering  in  this  world,  a  place  of  suffering 
to  the  Jews  ;  but  as  Gehenna  is  Hinnom,  not  Hades,  it  must 
be  a  visible  place  of  suffering,  and  therefore  cannot  be  the 
place  of  future  misery  ;  so  Mr.  B — concludes  that  as  there 
is  no  place  of  future  misery  there  can  be  no  state  of  future 
misery.  If  Mr.  B —  and  his  disciples  can  content  them- 
selves with  this  reasoning,  with  all  this  absurdity  upon  the 
face  of  it,  they  must  be  left  in  quiet  possession  of  their 
prize,  but  we  must  be  permitted  to  dissent. 

III.  The  author  of  the  "  Inquiry,"  after  reading  much, 
and  writing  much  of  what  has  been  the  fruit  of  his  reading 
and  thinking,  seems  to  me  to  be  very  far  from  being  ac- 
quainted with  his  own  system,  either  as  to  its  principle  or  ten* 


129  LECTURE  VK 

dency.  As  to  its  principle,  he  is  not  only  very  much  con- 
fused and  perplexed  upon  future  punishment,  whether  he 
is  to  contend  against  it  in  a  limited  or  unlimited  form,  but 
upon  what  he  is  to  erect  his  theory.  He  boldly  announces 
in  the  title  of  his  book,  four  words,  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus 
and  Gehenna  ;  upon  the  meaning  and  application  of  these, 
he  proposes  to  establish  his  system  ;  and  what  is  the  system 
he  is  endeavouring,  bonafidey  to  establish  ?  Can  we  make  out 
any  thing  else  but  this  ?  That  in  the  constitution  of  God's 
whole  universe,  natural  and  moral,  there  is  no  state,  or 
place,  or  condition  beyond  the  bounds  of  this  world  in  which 
sinners  can  be  punished.  His  proofs  are,  Sheol  or  Hades  is 
no  state  of  misery  or  happiness — Gehenna  is  a  state  of  tem- 
poral misery  only.  This  is  Mr.  B — 's  strong  hold ;  but 
after  all  his  expressed  confidence,  he  is  aware  that  his  strong 
hold  is  not  strong;  enough  to  hold  him  fast  and  secure  him 
from  fearful  attack.  Therefore  he  has  another  refuge,  name- 
ly, "  That  all  who  are  saved,  shall  be  saved  from  their  sins, 
"  reconciled  to  God,  and  made  meet  for  heaven."  This  is 
giving  up  the  principle  just  in  the  same  tame  way  as  he  gave 
up  what  he  contended  for  so  long  under  the  articles  of  soul 
and  body,  (Ivx*1*  ™p&)  by  praying  God's  mercy  ;  though 
God  could  punish  soul  and  body  in  Gehenna  he  would  not  do 
it :  so  now  sinners,  after  all  he  has  affirmed,  are  obnoxious  to 
punishment,  and  nothing  can  save  them  from  it,  but,  being 
saved  from  sin,  reconciled  to  God,  and  made  meet  for 
heaven.  Everv  bodv  must  see  at  once  that  if  the  salvation 
of  sinners  depends  on  their  being  pardoned  and  renewed  by 
divine  grace,  then  all  Mr.  B —  has  said  about  non-punish- 
ment in  Hades  or  Gehenna  comes  to  nothing  ;  for  though 
he  has  proved,  as  he  thinks,  that  there  is  no  future  pun- 
ishment for  sinners  in  either  of  the  places  called  Hell,  yet, 
"all  who  are  saved,  must  be  saved  from  their  sins,  and  re- 
conciled to  God,  and  made  meet  for  heaven."  The  conse- 
quence is,  all  who  are  not  saved  from  sin,  not  reconciled 
to  God,  and  not  made  meet  for  heaven  must  perish,  that  is, 


LECTURE  VI.  i2i 

will  be  given  over  to  punishment.  I  would  now,  just  call 
upon  the  disciples  of  Mr.  B —  to  look  at  the  sad  predica- 
ment into  which  their  master  has  brought  them.  He  has 
told  you  that  there  is  no  future  punishment  for  sinners ; 
Hell  is  only  the  grave,  a  mere  bugbear,  no  future  punish- 
ment in  Sheol,  Hades,  Tartarus  or  Gehenna,  nor  in  any  oth- 
er place.  Well,  you  have  listened,  and  have  been  allured 
by  the  syren  song,  you  have  given  loose  to  the  fire  of  na- 
ture, you  have  gotten  into  habits  of  free  and  easy  living, 
God  is  seldom  on  your  thoughts,  death  and  eternity  you 
have  put  far  away,  and  you  are  beginning  to  feel  satisfied 
that  all  is  well.  Now,  all  at  once,  after  this  sweet,  comfort- 
ing repose,  Mr.  B —  comes  and  tells  you,  that  the  sys- 
tem into  which  he  has  initiated  you,  and  by  which  you 
were  said  to  be  made  free,  is  an  idle  dream,  a  refuge  of 
lies — he  says,  you  must  break  off  your  sins  by  righteous- 
ness, be  reconciled  to  that  God  whom  you  have  made 
your  enemy,  and  be  prepared  for  heaven  or  you  will  cer- 
tainly perish.  He  tells  you  that  he  is  "  firmly"  persuaded 
of  the  truth  of  this.  And  here  I  will  add  my  testimony, 
and  testify,  candidly  to  Mr.  B—  himself,  that  he  has  en- 
deavoured to  set  up  a  system  of  religion,  the  first  princi- 
ple of  which  he  does  not  understand,  the  very  fabric  he 
rears  with  so  much  labour  and  pains,  he  prostrates  with  his 
own  hands  by  a  single  blow.  That  must  be  a  frail  and  fra- 
gile piece  of  work,  that  the  workmen  himself  cannot  handle 
without  demolishing. 

Our  author  seems  equally  unaware  of  the  tendency  of 
his  theory  ;  as  he  goes  along  every  thing  is  prostrated  that 
stands  in  his  way,  law,  gospel,  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles, 
evangelists,  Christ  himself,  his  sayings  are  ail  a  "  fiction," 
the  soul  of  man  is  all  a  *  vapour,'  hell  is  an  S  old  wife's  fa- 
ble,' and  God  the  Judge  of  all,  with  his  judgment-seat,  is 
laid  prostrate  with  all  the  rest.  But  this  levelling  and  de- 
molishing system  at  last  seems  to  awaken  the  anxieties  of 
our  Inquirer  himself;  he  is  rather  shocked  at  the  devasta* 


122  LECTURE  VI. 

tion  and  slaughter,  he  has  made  with  his  own  hands,  and  in 
his  affright  his  imagination  figures  to  him  a  formidable  oppo- 
nent.     Popular  opinion  objects,  and  the  objection  he  antici- 
pates thus — u  One  of  the  most  popular  objections,  which  I 
"  think  can  be  stated,  is,  that  my  sentiments  are  of  a  li- 
"  centious  tendency."     This  comes  in  on  the  336th  page  : 
he  considers  it  as  a  deadly  blow  aimed    at   his  favourite 
hypothesis,    and  a  deadly  wound  it  inflicts  too,  a  wound 
that  he  is  unable  to  heal;  indeed  he  applies  no  balm,  he 
abandons  his  own  system,  and  becomes  a  Retributionist, 
in  order  to  preserve  a  little  faith  yet  on  the  earth.      He 
says,      "  The  persons  who  bring  this  charge  against  us, 
"  seem  to  think  that  because  no  hell  torments  are  prepar- 
"  ed,  that  men  are  to  go  to  heaven  without  any  Saviour  or 
"  salvation.     We  believe  no  such  doctrine.     On  the  contra- 
"  ry,  we  as  firmly  believe  as  any  persons,  that  all  who  are 
"  saved,  shall  be  saved  from  their  sins,  reconciled  to  God, 
"  and  made  meet  for  heaven.     If  there  be  any  Universalists, 
"  who  believe  otherwise,  we  disown  them,  and  would  be 
"  glad  to  have  them  give  up  the  name,  until  they  have  re- 
"  linquished  such  principles."     As  Mr.  B —  does  not  tell 
us  in  this  paragraph,  nor  any  where  else  that  I  have  seen, 
how  men  who  die  in  their  sins  are  saved  from  them  ;— how 
men  who  go  out  of  this  world  at  enmity  with  God  are  recon- 
ciled to  Him ;  nor  how  men  who  die  in  a  state  of  mind  only  fit 
for  perdition  are  meetened  for  heaven,  the  objection  must 
lie  with  all  its  weight  upon  his  theory,  and  as  he  talks  of  dis- 
owning Universalists  for  holding  such  a  "  licentious"  doc- 
trine, he  must  submit  himself  to  the  rejection  ;  yes,  he  is  re- 
jected already  ;  Universalists  who  expect  salvation  through 
the  merits  of  a  Divine  Saviour,  and  by  the  influence  of  a 
Divine  Spirit,  consider  Mr.  B — 's  theory,  with  all  of  the 
same  school,  to  be  a  prodigal  libertine  infidelity,  a  wanton 
philosophy  that  dotes  upon  the  depraved  affections  of  the 
human  heart,  and  opens  the  floodgates  to  a  torrent  of  im- 
piety and  lust.     It  may  be  difficult  to  wake  up  thoroughly 


LKCTUKE  VI.  123 

our  theorist  to  these  consequences  and  tendencies  of  his 
system,  but  some,  with  whom  he  would  wish  to  be  denom- 
inated, are  wide  awake  to  the  depredations  he  is  making  up- 
on the  moral  government  of  the  universe  ;  they  see,  as  every 
serious  community  of  christians  must,  that  Mr.  B —  and 
his  disciples  have  but  one  step  more  to  take  and  they  are 
professed  Atheists,  •  without  God  in  the  world  ;'  their  pres- 
ent system  is  in  its  essence  Atheistical,  and  nothing  but  the 
honest  avowal  of  it  is  wanting  to  give  it  consistency  of 
character.  Our  author  does  not  seem  to  be  aware  of  the 
tendency  of  his  system,  as  it  regards  its  popularity :  he 
thinks  that  the  doctrine  of  future  misery  is  popular,  merely 
because  the  greater  pait  of  the  whole  christian  community 
of  various  denominations  profess  the  doctrine  in  their  creeds 
and  formularies  ;  but  here  he  has  suffered  himself  to  be  de- 
luded, for  the  great  body  of  these  are  practically,  non-ret- 
ributionists;  they  find  something  in  their  several  sys- 
tems, equal  to  what  Mr.  B —  offers  in  his,  away  of  escape 
from  punishment,  and  so  they  can  go  on  in  their  iniquities, 
and  sin  because  grace  abounds.  The  Romanists  escape  the 
necessity  of  a  holy  and  virtuous  life  by  their  priestly  abso- 
lution, and  their  purgatory.  The  church  of  England  buries 
all  her  members  'in  sure  and  certain  hope'  of  future  happi- 
ness; here  also  a  new  heart  and  a  new  spirit  are  unneces- 
sary. Calvinists,  of  various  orders,  expect  salvation  from 
the  gracious  decree  of  predestination,  without  being  con- 
formed to  the  image  of  God's  Son.  Arminians  and  Hop- 
kinsians  expect  they  shall  get  to  heaven  by  the  general  effi- 
cacy of  Christ's  death  without  the  love  of  Christ  constrain- 
ing them  to  good  works.  Others  find  an  asylum  in  their 
party,  a  peculiar  form  of  discipline,  one  hath  a  '  psalm,' 
another  a  ■  doctrine,'  a  third  a  ■  revelation,'  and  a  fourth, 
an  '  interpretation,'  and  by  these  they  escape  the  law  of 
Christ  and  expect  to  get  to  heaven  without  any  meetness  for 
its  pleasures  and  its  employments.  I  do  not  say  that  the 
creeds  and  systems  of  these  several  denominations  of  pro- 


124  LECTURE  VT. 

fesscd  christians,  taken,  severally  as  a  whole,  encourage  or  in- 
spire the  hope  of  impunity ;  but  these  nominal  christians 
find  some  detached  principles  in  their  systems  of  religion 
which  they  think  they  can  accommodate  to  their  ungodly 
propensities,  and  so  they  hold  to  their  own  peculiar  denom 
ination,  and  have  the  credit  of  such  faith,  while  they  in  fact 
are  as  much  Universalist  as  our  Inquirer  himself;  and  of  the 
same  class  too,  non-retributionists.  This  is  what 
must  render  Mr.  B — 's  system  popular,  it  is  that  which 
the  free-thinking  part  of  the  community  want;  and  as  the 
"  Inquiry"  assumes  a  respectable  appearance,  and  courts 
the  -mention  of  the  learned,  it  is  likely  to  meet  with  admir- 
ers ;  Mr.  B —  expects  it  to  be  so,  he  says  (Int.  \\.)  "  There 
are  some,  he  hopes,  many,  who  would  rejoice  to  find  it  fairly 
and  scripturally  proved  that  hell  is  not  a  place  of  future 
punishment. — From  such  the  author  expects  a  candid  and 
patient  hearing  of  the  evidence  he  has  to  produce."  The 
moral  character  of  our  Inquirer's  converts  shall  be  ascertain- 
ed by  the  view  he  himself  gives  of  his  opponents.  "  He  is 
deeply  sensible  that  learning,  and  piety,  and  popular  opin- 
ion, are  all  against  him."  If  Mr.  B— •  is  "deeply  sensible 
that  learning  and  piety  are  against"  his  system,  and  that  it 
will  be  patiently  endured  only  by  those  who  can  rejoice  to 
find  that  there  is  no  punishment  for  the  wicked — if  Mr.  B— 
is  sensible  of  all  this,  and  yet  not  impressed  with  the  bad 
moral  tendency  of  his  system,  I  do  not  see  that  we  can  say 
any  thing  likely  to  produce  conviction  upon  his  mind  ;  ■  to 
his  own  Master  he  standeth  or  falleth.' 

IV.  We  must  not  fait  to  point  out  to  you  a  stratagem  Mr. 
B —  frequently  resorts  to  in  the  course  of  his  "  Inquiry," 
but  especially  in  the  section  entitled  "  Objections  consider- 
«/,"  by  which  he  seems  to  obtain  a  victory,  when,  in  fact, 
he  has  met  no  adversary.  He  says,  "  It  would  be  a  mere 
H  waste  of  time,  and  a  very  trifling  employment,  to  answer 
"  every  silly  objection  which  might  be  made— All  will  allow, 
"  that  objections  which  are  rational,  and  which  affect  the  sub- 


LECTURE  VI.  133 

"  ject  against  which  they  are  brought,  demand  an  answer.— 
"These  objections  divide  themselves  into  two  classes; 
<c  plausible,  popular  objections,  but  which  do  not  bear  against 
81  the  argument  which  has  been  adduced :  and  such  as  are 
"  supposed  to  have  some  weight  against  the  evidence  in  sup- 
"port  of  that  argument  "  Observe  here,  that  Mr.  B —  is 
not  disposed  to  notice  "  every  (any)  silly  objection  which 
might  be  made  ;"  but  such  as  are  "  rational  and  affect  the 
subject,"  he  will  notice.  The  objections  you  will  observe 
farther,  are  not,  after  all,  objections  really  made  by  any  one,  . 
but  only  such  as  he  anticipates,  or  such  as  he  frames  him- 
self in  his  own  words ;  but  we  should  expect  them  to  be 
objections  that  "  affect  the  subject."  But  lo,  and  behold, 
these  objections  he  classifies  under  two  heads  the  1st.  as 
having  no  bearing  against  the  argument  adduced  by  him,  and 
the  2d.  as  only  supposed  to  have  some  weight  against  his 
evidence.  Such  objections  as  these  I  should  expect  to  be 
silly  ones,  and  such  as  he  said  above  would  be  a  waste  of 
time  to  notice.  And  the  fact  is,  the  objections  he  has  an- 
ticipated and  introduced  are,  for  the  most  part,  very  weak, 
and  without  energy,  in  their  application  ;  they  are  applied  in 
just  such  a  manner  as  I  should  expect  an  opponent  to  apply 
them.  And  even  those  objections  which  are  more  charac- 
teristic of  a  counter  argument  he  objects  to,  as  illegitimate, 
and  unreasonable,and  treats  us  very  uncourteously  in  defend- 
ing himself  This  is  particularly  the  case  on  the  article  of 
state  in  opposition  to  place.  Besides,  it  is  no  honorable 
warfare  for  a  man  to  make  an  adversary  to  his  own  mind, 
a  mere  man  of  straw,  and  then  show  his  prowess  in  beating 
him  down.  Of  these  objections  there  are,  to  the  best  of  my 
apprehension,  four  in  the  first  class,  and  thirteen  in  the  se- 
cond. The  discussion  of  these  articles  occupies  no  less 
than  85  pages,  a  very  large  proportion  of  which  is  taken  up 
in  assumptions  on  Gehenna,  which  assumptions  we  have 
proved,  from  scripture  testimony,  to  be  without  foundation. 
There  are  two  pages  on  these  points  which  Mr.  B —  tell* 

17 


M  LECTURE  VI. 

us  he  " shuddered"  when  he  wrote.  I  hope  he  did,  but 
how  a  man  of  his  habits  could  ik  shudder"  to  write  such  a 
paragraph,  and  not  "  shudder"  to  print  it,  is  to  me  astonish- 
ing. As  I  would  rather  suppress,  than  excite  curiosity  on 
this  particular,  it  is  necessarv  to  sav,  that  this  indecent  ar- 
tide  contains  a  supposed  dialogue  between  God  and  the 
Devil  ;  the  Devil  is  a  person  whose  real  being  I  should, 
from  some  hints  in  the  "  Inquiry,**  suppose  Mr.  B —  deni- 
ed, but  in  this  passage,  under  his  own  hand,  with  shudder- 
irig  and  horror,  he  has  given  us  not  only  proofs  of  the  De- 
vil's being,  but  of  his  agency  upon  the  minds  of  men,  'Lord 
lead  us  not  into  temptation,  but  deliver  us  from  the  evil 
one.' 

The  matter  of  Mr.  B— 's  system  is  certainly  very  much 
scattered  and  lies  more  or  less  in  every  part  of  his  book  : 
several  things  have  been  called  up  at  times  as  we  have  gone 
along,  which  are  principally  treated  in  this  section  of  objec- 
tions answered,  and  as  an  article  or  two  more  under  another 
head  will  come  to  view,  we  need  not  add  to  this  by  any- 
farther  discussions  of  these  observations  now. 

V.  But  there  is  yet  another  refuge  to  which  our  Inquirer 
has  fled  for  succour,  with  his  system  ;  to  which  we  are  com- 
pelled to  follow  him  :  but  whether  we  shall  dislodge  him  so 
easily  as  we  have  done  in  former  retreats  is  a  matter  of  some 
doubt.  However,  if  we  cannot  drive  him  out,  we  must  make 
his  asylum  as  inconvenient  and  as  comfortless  as  possible. 
Mr.  B —  apologizes  for  his  theory,  and  even  jutifies  his 
speculation,  upon  what  he  declares  to  be  the  manifest  state 
and  condition  of  all  the  churches,  reputed  as  orthodox  or 
evangelical/m  this  sectionof  our  American  Israel.  He  asserts, 
that  they  have  departed  from  the  great  doctrines  of  the  Re- 
formation— that  their  ecclesiastical  discipline  and  moral  pro- 
gress are  a  mere  party  formality,  and  a  shameful  hypocrisy* 

The  term  Orthodox  is  of  various  acceptance.  Some- 
times, and  that  often,  it  describes  an  established  or  dominant 
party  in  the  visible  church,  or  a  party  that  has  retained  enough 


LECTURE  VJ.  ur 

of  power  still  to  usurp  and  domineer  over  such  of  their 
brethren  as  refuse  to  be  of  their  party  and  to  work  with  them 
in  their  church  craft.     Thus  the  term  applies  to  all  parties, 
and  mere  sectarians  of  every  creed,  whether  it  consists  of 
faith  or  unbelief;  this  is  orthodoxy.     But  by  the  term  we 
understand,  sometimes,  that  body  of  christians  who  hold,  what 
are  commonly  called,  the  doctrines  of  the  reformation  ;  what 
these  are  I  need  not  delineate,  every  one  at  all  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  the  church  knows  what  these  are.     The  term 
evangelical  applies  much  in  the  same  way.  Churches  in  this 
region,  thus  denominated,  Mr.  B —  thinks  have  very  gen- 
erally departed    from    the    reformation    orthodox  standard. 
On  the   subject  he  speaks  thus.     (^79)   "  You  may  hear 
"  men  every  day  call  themselves  Calvinists  :  but  Calvinism 
"  now  is  a  very  different  thing  from  what  is  found  in  the 
"  works  of  Calvin.     You  hear  also  of  orthodoxy,  but  ortho- 
"  doxy  is  not  the  same  now  that  it   was  twenty  years  ago, 
"and  what  is  true  orthodoxy  in  America  would  not  be  or- 
"  thodoxy  in  Scotland"  and  we  may  add  neither  in   the 
Southern  churches,  as  well  as  churches  generally  in  Europe. 
Now,  can  we  defend  these  churches  from  these  charges? 
can  any  one  do  it,  with  such  glaring  corruptions  before  our 
eyes.     Our  principal  theological  department,  after  a  series 
of  vacillating  and  speculating,has  aimed  a  deadly  blow  at  the 
all  important  and  all  precious  doctrine  of  the  atonement. 
And  what  is  still  worse  on  this  point,  after  some  effort  on 
the  part  of  this  declining  seminary  to  return,  the  Christian 
Spectator,  the  professed  guardian  of  sound  doctrine,  comes 
out  in  open  advocacy  of  this  defalcation,  and  boldly  tells 
the  orthodox  community,  that  they  do  not  understand  the 
subject.     It  is  really  a  pity,  that  a  journal  of  the  general 
merit  of  the  Christian  Spectator,  should  not  maintain  enough 
of  independence  and   decision   to    assert  the  doctrine  of 
the  atonement,  when  the  credit  of  high  places  is  at  stake. 
This  kind  of  proceeding  in  theological  affairs  gives  Mr.  B — , 
and  indeed  all  unbelievers,  an  opportunity  of  exulting  over 


128  LECTURE  VI. 

the  orthodox.  Hear  what  he  says  (379)  "  Before  they  (the 
n  orthodox)  open  their  lips  against  me,  let  them  return  to 
"  the  doctrines  of  their  forefathers,  and  confess  how  greatly 
"  they  have  departed  from  the  good  old  way." 

Mr.  B —  triumphs  not  a  little  also  over  the  fallen  moral 
character  of  the  orthodox,  he  asserts  their  discipline  and 
general  ecclesiastical  proceedings  to  be  very  wide  of  the 
truth  and  righteousness.     He  says  many  hard  things,  two 
or  three  of  which  only  shall  I  notice.     He  says  (231)  that 
the  orthodox  do  not  believe  the  doctrines  they  profess,  par- 
ticularly the  punishment  of  the  wicked,  if  they  did  they  would 
not  act  as  they  do.      He  says  (353)  that  revivals  of  religion, 
the  subject  of  so  much  boast,  are  mere  schemes  of  church 
policy,  a  pious  fraud,  a  manoeuvre  to  get  up  a  something  for 
the  enlargement  of  a  sect  wanting  in   better  means  of  pro- 
moting its  spiritual  interest.      He  adds  also,  (358)  that  he 
has  seen  "  printed  rules  for  bringing  about  revivals" — and 
that  any  may  get  up  a  revival  if  they  will.     On  the  subject 
of  revivals  I  know  some  people  object  to  them,  as  they  ob- 
ject to  all  real  religion.     Others  lay  such  stress  upon  these 
excitements  as  to  subvert  and  neglect  the  means  God  has 
appointed  for  building  up  his  church  in  faith  and  holiness. 
Other  some  hang  in  doubt,  and  among  these  are  to  be  found 
some  of  the  best  advocates  of  the  cross  of  Christ  in  this 
Union  :  and  although  I  have  not  the  vanity  to  class  myself 
with  the  best  advocates  of  the  cross,  yet,  with  these  I  am 
somewhat  in  doubt,  and  how  can  I  be  otherwise,  when  fur- 
ished  with  no  better  evidence  than  weekly  newspaper  detail 
—detail  so  frequently  contradicted  by  an  appeal  to  the  facts 
they  so  incorrectly  deal  out  to  their  readers  :  and  then,  upon 
a  nearer  approach  to  these  asserted  cases,  so  far  as  my  ob- 
servation  has   gone,    the  evidence  has  been  still  stronger 
against  their  producing  any  real  increase  of  vital  goodness. 
Much  that  has  fallen  within  my  personal  observation,  leads 
me  to  lament  a  very  visible  want  of  sound  orthodox  principle, 
and  a  still  greater  dereliction  of  moral  principle. 


LECTURE  VI.  129 

From  this  view  of  orthodoxy,  as  given  by  Mr.  B — ,  we 
learn  two  things.  First,  the  probable  reason  why  the  or- 
thodox did  not  attempt  an  answer  to  the  "  Inquiry" — rhe 
reason  is  rather  ob\  ions,  the  orthodox  were  conseious  that 
they  were  too  much  on  the  wane  themselves  to  do  any 
thing  with  Mr.  B — ;  lie  would  have  said,  if  they  had 
"  opened  their  lips" — J  Physician  heal  thyself.'  He  does  say, 
"  Before  they  open  their  lips  against  me,  let  them  return  to 
"  the  doctrines  of  their  forefathers  and  confess  how  greatly 
"they  have  departed  from  the  good  old  way"  We  are 
taught  secondly,  how  to  take  our  leave  of  Mr.  B — .  We 
have  an  opportunity  now  of  introducing  our  friend  Balfour 
to  a  body  of  the  christian  community7  with  whom,  it  is  pro- 
bable, he  had  thought  there  could  be  little  fellowship.  Mr. 
B —  insinuates  that  the  orthodox  do  not  believe  in  a  future 
retribution  for  sinners,  (231)  and  he  justifies  his  "doubts" 
of  their  faith  in  this  doctrine  by  argument  not  a  little  co- 
gent :  if  so,  then  they  are  Universalists,and  Universalists  of 
Mr.  B — 's  class,  Non-retributionists.  The  junction  is  easi- 
ly formed  and  it  seems  natural ;  for  these  apostatizing  or- 
thodox, it  seems  have  had  a  hand  in  forming  our  Inquirer's 
present  scheme,  and  Mr.  B —  himself  has  given  a  delinea- 
tion of  their  decline  so  favourable  to  his  own,  that  they  in 
the  fitness  of  things  ought  to  coalesce,  and  declare  them- 
selves one.  But  in  this  junction,  for  a  junction  there  is, 
I  solemnly  call  upon  Mr.  B —  and  his  orthodox  allies  se- 
riously to  consider  from  whence  they  are  fallen  and  to  re- 
pent, and  to  do  their  first  works. 

In  all  the  foregoing  it  will  be  perceived  that  I  have  been 
attempting  a  Reply  to  Mr.  B — 's  "  Inquiry,"  not  altogeth- 
er a  reply  to  his  Book  ;  to  have  replied  to  that,  would  have 
been  to  have  interleaved  450  pages  with  twice  as  many  more, 
and  then  to  have  extended  these  lectures  to  a  wearisome 
length.  Mr.  B — 's  theory  is,  that  there  is  no  future  pun- 
ishment— Sheol  or  Hades,as  the  future  invisible  state  of  men, 
gives  no  proof  of  future  punishment — Gehenna  is  no  em- 


130  LECTURE  VI. 

blem  of  future  state  punishment,  nor  has  it  any  allusion  to  fu- 
ture punishment.  To  these  articles  I  have  attempted  a  re- 
ply, considering  them  to  contain  the  nucleus  of  the  whole 
theory ;  some  few  incidentals,  important  in  their  place, 
have  fallen  under  our  notice.  What  has  been  our  success 
the  religious  community  will  decide.  But  for  myself  I 
must  just  say,  that  if  I  have  proved  any  thing,  I  have  prov- 
ed that  the  wicked  are  punished  in  a  future  state ;  this  too 
has  been  proved  by  the  Scriptures,  without  any  regard  to 
human  systems  or  creeds,  orthodox,  or  heterodox.  If  Mr. 
B —  should  think  his  "  Inquiry"  not  met,  I  have  to  demand 
of  him,  in  the  first  place,  an  explicit  statement  of  his  own 
theory — a  precision  of  idea  on  future,  in  opposition,  to 
eternal  punishment,  an  acknowledgment  that  the  former 
does  not  include  the  latter,  or  that,  even  proving  there  is  no 
eternal  punishment,  it  is  not  proved  that  there  is  no  future 
punishment.  And  then  I  shall  call  upon  him  to  prove,  in 
direct  terms,  from  the  Scriptures  ;  that  all  the  wicked  are 
received  into  happiness  immediately  at  death  :  this  he  must 
do,  not  by  negatives  but  by  positives :  We  have  dealt  in 
positives,  We  have  shown  you  the  wicked  *  in  torments,' 
'tormented  in  Hades.' — 'Soul  and  body  destroyed,  (not 
annihilated)  in  Gehenna.'  Now  it  remains  for  Mr.  B —  to 
prove  positively  the  reverse,  and  that  in  similar  terms — 
Without  this  positive  way  of  going  to  work,  it  will  not 
serve  his  purpose  to  give  a  new  edition  of  his  present 
"  Inquiry,"  or  to  publish  his  announced  second  or  "  sep- 
arate Inquiry."  No,  nothing  will  do,  the  public  will  re- 
ceive  nothing  from  him,  but  plain  matters  of  fact  as  laid 
down  in  the  Scriptures.  Nothing  short  of  this  shall  I 
pledge  myself  to  notice.  And  now  to  the  God  of  truth  I 
commend  him,  and  his,  praying  with  my  whole  heart, 
that  he  yet  may  be  the  honoured  instrument  of  eliciting  di- 
vine truth,  and  finally  be  brought  to  the  highest  enjoyment 
of  it  in  the  midst  of  the  Paradise  of  God. 


LECTURE  VI.  131 

To  this  congregation  one  word.  The  society  meeting  in 
this  church  will  accept  my  thanks,  which  I  now  publicly 
tender  them,  for  the  handsome  accommodation  afforded  me 
in  the  use  of  this  pulpit,  and  for  their  candour  in  admitting 
a  *  free  inquiry'  in  their  place  when  refused  by  others.  May 
the  God  of  all  grace  be  your  portion,  and  may  we  in  hea- 
ven together  praise  God  and  the  Lamb  for  the  privileges  en- 
joyed in  these  exercises.  The  choir,  whose  sweet  and  har- 
monic sounds  have  inspired  our  devotions,  will  also  accept 
our  thanks.  May  they  under  heaven's  highest  arch  unite 
with  angels  and  elders  and  harpers  in  the  praise  of  God  and 
the  Lamb  forever  and  ever.  This  audience,  some  of  them, 
have  come  from  far,  and  stood  many  a  weary  hour,  and  all 
have  attentively  listened  ;  accept  a  humble  acknowledgment 
from  a  preacher,  whose  measure  of  talent  has  been  much  as- 
sisted by  your  patience  and  seriousness,  and  persevering  ap- 
plication to  the  interesting  subject  we  have  been  called  to 
consider.  May  that  blood,  which  was  shed  for  the  congre- 
gation and  the  priesthood,  be  upon  you,  and  upon  him  that 
has  ministered  to  you.  '  And  now  unto  him  that  is  able  to 
keep  you  from  falling,  and  to  present  you  faultless  before  the 
presence  of  his  glory  with  exceeding  joy,  to  the  only  wise 
God  our  Saviour,  be  glory,  and  majesty,  dominion  and 
power,  both  now  and  ever  Amen.' 


131 

NOTE. 

The  sixth  and  last  Lecture,  more  particularly,  declares  Mr.  Bal- 
four's system  to  lie  in  direct  opposition    lo  Divine   Authority,  as   re- 
vealed in  the  Holy  Scriptures.      This  is  the  point  at  which  we  are  at 
issue,  and  this  is  what  1  would  wish  deeply  to  impress  upon  his  mind; 
for  this  especial  purpose  this  note  is  added.    The  '*  Inquiry''  is  written 
to  show  that  t he   wicked,  dying  in    wiekedness,  go  immediately  at 
death  to  future  happiness.  —  In  opposition  to  this  1  have  endvavoured 
to  show  that  the  Scriptures  declare,  thai,  the  wicked  at  death  go  in- 
to a  state  of  future  punishment  :  passages  expressing  this  have  been 
cited,  and  a  view  given  of  this  doctrine  as   a  fact   demonstrated,  as 
distinctly  and  positively,  as  that  the  righteous   at   death  have    hope, 
and  go  into  a  state   of  future   happiness.     If  Mr.  B —  should  think 
proper  to  remark  upon  the  foregoing,  and  offer  his  remarks  as  a  ref- 
utation of  my  asserted  scripture  theory,  1  wish  now  finally  to  remind 
him,  that  his  going  over  the  old  ground,  Sheol,  Hades,  &c.  will  he  of 
no  avail,  he  has  done  more  than  enough  there  already. — It   will  be 
equally  in  vain  to  call  in  the  help  of  Dr.  Campbell,  and  other  learn- 
ed writers,  every  journey  that  way  is  travelling  beyond  the  record. — 
Neither  must  he  fall  upon  an  exposure  of  the  orthodox,  they  may  be 
as  corrupt  as  he  represents  them,  or  they  may  not,  it  matters  nothing 
to  him  or  me  in  this  case.    Mr.  B —  has  to  show  us  in  the  Scriptures 
this  doctrine,  namely,  that,  The  wicked  hath   hope  in  his  death. — 
That  the  wicked  go  into  life  eternal. — That  the   wicked  shall    shine 
as  the  sun  iu  the  kingdom  of  God. — That  within,  not  without,  are 
dogs  and  sorcerers,  &c.  he  must  give  us  chapter   and  verse  for  this, 
as  we  have  done  in   establishing  the  opposite  doctrine,  and  then  I 
stand  pledged  to  acknowledge  myself  defeated,  but  not  till  then,  do  I 
pledge  myself  to  say  one  word.     Mr.  B —  is  to  be  aware  also,  that  in 
this  dispute  and  discussion,  I  have  been  in  no  sense  the  organ  or  agent 
of  a  party,  even  those  in  the  christian   world,  whose  theological    sys- 
tem may  be  supposed  to  favour  mine,  have  stood  off,  and  my  humble 
effort  has  been  under  their  frown  ;  they  have  no  interest,  they  say,  in 
this  controversy,  therefore  in  Mr.  B — *s  defeat  they  gain  nothing,  or 
in  his  triumph  they  lose  nothing ;  I  am  a  single  individual,  alone  and 
unpledged  in  this  warfare.     Mr.  B —  must   then    reply  to  ?ne,   if  he 
reply  at  all,  not  to  any  one,  or  to  any  party  besides.  1  am  as  indifferent 
to  the  views  of  these  parties  as  they  can  be  to  the  result  of  this  dis- 
cussion ;  so  that  if  I  fail  to  convince  Mr.  B —  the  church  will  suffer 
no  damage,  and  if  I  succeed  and  restore  Mr.  B —  and    his  followers 
to  the  right  way —  to  "  the  good  old  way,"  I  have  only  to  add  devout- 
ly, to  God  be  all  the  glory. 


1 


*** 


& 


